Zahn v. Kent, 2:14-cv-01065

Background

On July 15, 2011, Kent police responded to a domestic disturbance where dispatch reported Clayton Zahn armed with a knife and intoxicated; officers, including Jason Bishop, arrived in uniform.
Officer Bishop armed a 12‑gauge "beanbag" shotgun (less‑lethal but potentially deadly) and encountered Zahn in a garage; officers ordered Zahn to show his hands and lie face down.
Officers contend Zahn shouted at them, moved his right hand toward the small of his back as if reaching for a weapon, and Bishop fired a beanbag round after Sergeant Clark shouted "beanbag him."
Plaintiff Kezawin Boyd (Zahn’s sister) gives varying testimony about whether she saw Zahn lower his hands or saw the reach; she also says she saw the flash of the beanbag being fired and later stated she did not see him put his hands down.
Zahn was struck in the abdomen, hospitalized, discharged, and died nearly two years later; Plaintiffs brought § 1983 excessive‑force, municipal‑liability, wrongful death, and survival claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Bishop's use of a beanbag shotgun was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment	Bishop used excessive (potentially deadly) force when Zahn still had hands raised; credibility disputes create triable issues	Use of force was reasonable because Zahn reached toward his waist/back as if to draw a weapon, justifying force	Denied summary judgment — disputed material facts (eyewitness contradictions) preclude resolution as a matter of law
Whether factual disputes preclude summary judgment on reasonableness	Boyd’s testimony creates genuine dispute about whether Zahn lowered his hands or reached for a weapon	Witnesses (officers) say Zahn made a sudden reaching motion toward small of his back	Court finds credibility/inference issues create material facts for jury; summary judgment inappropriate
Qualified immunity for Officer Bishop	Plaintiff seeks to dismiss qualified immunity defense, arguing facts (taken favorably) show a constitutional violation and clearly established law	Bishop asserts entitlement to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could believe force was lawful given perceived threat	Denied dismissal of the defense; material factual disputes (threat to others, immediate danger) prevent granting qualified immunity at summary judgment stage
Dismissal of Washington state wrongful‑death and survival claims	State claims should survive because whether force was wrongful depends on whether it was objectively reasonable; factual disputes exist	Defendants argue lawful (reasonable) force cannot support wrongful‑death/survival claims and thus those claims should be dismissed	Denied summary judgment on state claims because same material factual disputes defeat dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (trial court cannot weigh evidence at summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmovant must show genuine issue on essential element to survive summary judgment)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective‑reasonableness standard for force claims)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (where video leaves no dispute, courts may decide reasonableness as a matter of law)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity framework; immunity protects from trial)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address qualified immunity questions in either order)
Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864 ( Ninth Circuit three‑step reasonableness test and qualified immunity discussion)
Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119 (disputed material facts on reasonableness are for the jury)
Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949 (force that is excessive may still occur when some force is justified)
Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (factors for evaluating government interest in force)
Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959 (additional context on force analysis)