Treneshia Dukes v. Nicholas Deaton
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1367
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Clayton County SWAT executed a no-knock search warrant at dawn for Jason Ward’s apartment; warrant noted suspected marijuana sales and that Ward carried a handgun.
- Operational plan authorized use of flashbangs (two planned; any team member could deploy more); SWAT training and the flashbang manual instructed officers to visually inspect areas before deploying flashbangs because they can cause serious injury.
- During the raid three flashbangs detonated: two as planned; Officer Nicholas Deaton threw a third flashbang toward the bedroom window. Dukes (Ward’s girlfriend), asleep in the bedroom, was struck/near the device and suffered severe burns.
- Dukes sued Deaton and Commander Stephen Branham for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for assault/battery; she also alleged supervisory liability against Branham.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Deaton and Branham on qualified immunity and official immunity grounds; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deaton’s use of a flashbang constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment | Dukes: Throwing a flashbang into a dark bedroom without visually checking was objectively unreasonable and violated her Fourth Amendment rights | Deaton: Deployment was within discretionary tactical plan for a potentially dangerous suspect; not clearly unreasonable given facts known (weapon, drug activity) | Court: Use was excessive force on the facts, but not clearly established law at the time; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Deaton is personally liable for assault and battery under Georgia law | Dukes: Deployment was negligent/ministerial or done with malice, so official immunity shouldn’t apply | Deaton: Deployment was a discretionary police decision; no evidence of intent to injure; thus official immunity applies | Court: Deployment discretionary; no evidence of actual malice or intent to injure; official immunity bars tort claims |
| Whether Branham is liable under supervisory liability for failure to train | Dukes: Branham failed to train/supervise re: flashbang use, causing the constitutional violation | Branham: Subordinate’s conduct was not a clearly established constitutional violation; thus no supervisory liability | Court: Because Deaton’s violation wasn’t clearly established, Branham entitled to qualified immunity on failure-to-train claim |
| Whether Branham personally participated in throwing the flashbang | Dukes: (asserted at summary judgment) Branham personally threw a flashbang | Branham: Not alleged in the operative complaint; new theory improper at summary judgment | Court: Court declines to consider late-added theory; claim not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity: right must be clearly established)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (novel factual circumstances do not always defeat clearly established-rights analysis)
- Bing ex rel. Bing v. City of Whitehall, 456 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2006) (use of a second flashbang can violate the Fourth Amendment though not always clearly established)
- Boyd v. Benton Cty., 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to visually inspect before deploying a flashbang weighs against reasonableness)
- Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, 600 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2010) (similar holding on flashbang inspection and bystander risk)