William Manery v. Jason Lee, 124 F.4th 1073

William Manery brought a § 1983 lawsuit against Lieutenant Jason Lee, alleging excessive and unconstitutional use of deadly force during an attempted arrest.
The incident occurred when Lee and other law enforcement officers sought to apprehend Manery on out-of-state warrants, including for aggravated assault with a vehicle; officers believed Manery was armed and had previously threatened “suicide by cop.”
During the encounter, Manery reversed and drove his vehicle into police cars, attempting to evade capture, at which point Lee shot at him, injuring Manery.
The case was removed from Indiana state court to federal district court, where Lee sought summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
The district court denied summary judgment, reasoning that unresolved material factual disputes existed about the justification for Lee's use of deadly force, particularly whether Manery posed an ongoing imminent threat at the moment shots were fired.
Lee appealed the qualified immunity denial; the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding Lee was entitled to qualified immunity even accepting Manery's version of the facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lee’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment	Manery argued that deadly force was used after the threat had diminished, as his vehicle was stopped and he posed no imminent danger.	Lee contended that, given the rapidly evolving situation and information available (danger, flight risk), deadly force was objectively reasonable.	The court assumed but did not decide a violation, instead focusing on clearly established law.
Whether qualified immunity protected Lee	Manery argued that established case law proscribed using deadly force after a threat ends.	Lee argued no precedent clearly forbade his actions in the specific factual situation presented.	Court held Lee was entitled to qualified immunity, as no clearly established law squarely governed these facts.
Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal	Manery contested jurisdiction due to fact disputes over the circumstances of the shooting.	Lee asserted jurisdiction was proper because he accepted plaintiff’s version for appeal purposes.	Court found jurisdiction was proper based on defendant's acceptance of plaintiff's facts.
Relevance and application of analogous precedent	Manery cited prior cases restricting use of force after a threat ends (Scott, Starks).	Lee argued those cases were factually distinct, not placing the constitutional question “beyond debate.”	Court agreed with Lee; precedents were not sufficiently analogous to clearly establish the right.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use of deadly force must be reasonable; key Fourth Amendment standard)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness of force evaluated from officer’s perspective under rapidly changing circumstances)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity attaches unless rights are clearly established)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (officers granted qualified immunity in deadly force claim absent clear precedent)
Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752 (reasonable use of force depends on vehicle position and officer threat)
Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (officers may not create their own danger to justify deadly force)
Johnson v. Scott, 576 F.3d 658 (officers not required to instantly accept apparent surrender in dynamic encounters)