483 F.Supp.3d 999
W.D. Wash.2020Background
- Feb. 21, 2016: Two SPD Anti-Crime Team officers (Miller and Spaulding) surveilled a trailer-park apartment; Miller earlier reported seeing a holstered handgun on Che Andre Taylor’s right hip.
- Officers lost continuous sight of Taylor for ~30 minutes; Taylor later emerged as front‑seat passenger of a Ford Taurus; Miller and Spaulding (plainclothes but wearing “POLICE” outerwear) and two uniformed officers approached and gave commands.
- The encounter from approach to shooting lasted about 5–6 seconds; Miller fired a shotgun round and Spaulding fired multiple rifle rounds; Taylor died at the scene.
- A Springfield .45 handgun was later found under the passenger seat; an empty holster was recovered nearby; forensic prints/DNA were inconclusive.
- Plaintiffs (Taylor’s estate, mother, children, and others) sued City and officers asserting negligence, outrage, false arrest, unlawful seizure, WLAD discrimination, and § 1983 substantive‑due‑process and excessive‑force claims; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Court disposed of several claims as a matter of law (dismissals of some defendants and claims) but denied summary judgment on key Fourth Amendment and related state claims because genuine fact disputes remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for Miller & Spaulding re: excessive force | Officers misinterpreted Taylor’s movements; a jury could find he was complying or unable to comply, so deadly force was unreasonable | Officers reasonably believed Taylor was reaching for a gun and posed an immediate threat; qualified immunity applies | Denied as to Miller & Spaulding — factual disputes about whether Taylor was reaching for a weapon preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity |
| Probable cause to arrest/unlawful seizure | Miller’s earlier observation that Taylor was armed was stale after ~30 minutes and obstructed views; insufficient basis for arrest with deadly force | Prior observation that Taylor was a felon seen with a holstered gun, plus the officers’ contemporaneous perceptions, supplied probable cause | Not decided as a matter of law — fact issues (staleness, visibility) make probable cause a jury question |
| Individual liability of Acuesta & Barnes | Plaintiffs sought to hold all officers liable for commands and deployment failures | Acuesta and Barnes did not shoot or instigate the arrest; mere presence insufficient for §1983 liability | Claims against Acuesta and Barnes dismissed with prejudice (no personal participation in arrest/use of force) |
| Monell municipal liability against City of Seattle | City failed to train or supervise; customs/tactics caused the unconstitutional seizure/use of force | No evidence of policy, custom, final‑policy‑maker action, ratification, or deliberate indifference in training | Dismissed with prejudice — plaintiffs identified no admissible evidence supporting Monell theories |
| RCW 4.24.420 wrongful‑death defense and state claims | Plaintiffs argue disputed facts about whether Taylor was committing a felony at death and proximate causation | Defendants invoke statutory complete defense because Taylor allegedly possessed a firearm and assaulted officers | Not resolved at summary judgment — factual disputes over whether felony occurred and causation remain |
| WLAD discrimination claim | Plaintiffs claim race was a substantial factor because only Taylor (Black) was shot | Defendants note the other occupants were not seen armed or making furtive movements; no affirmative evidence race was substantial factor | WLAD claim dismissed with prejudice — insufficient evidence that race was a substantial factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under §1983 cannot rest on respondeat superior)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two‑step analysis as originally articulated)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide qualified immunity elements in flexible sequence)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive‑force claims judged by objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment)
- Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 F.3d 1076 (a jury may disbelieve officers in “they said, he’s dead” shootings; factual issues can preclude summary judgment)
- Beier v. City of Lewiston, 354 F.3d 1058 (probable cause requirement; officers must reasonably assess the facts before arrest)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established law requires fair warning to officers that conduct is unlawful)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity shields all but plainly incompetent or knowingly unlawful conduct)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (qualified immunity is immunity from suit)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence may be credited on summary judgment when it renders plaintiff’s version implausible)
- Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113 (theories for municipal §1983 liability)