Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 21
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
In this civil rights action, 42 U.S.C. 1983, Defendant Kerry Fournet appeals
the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue
of qualified immunity. See Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1243 (10th
Cir.1992) (district court's decision denying qualified immunity is final,
appealable order under 28 U.S.C. 1291). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, a
Boulder County deputy sheriff, used excessive force when the deputy fatally
wounded Plaintiffs' decedent while investigating a domestic disturbance. The
issue presented by this appeal is whether, considering the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable officer could have believed using deadly
force against Plaintiffs' decedent was constitutionally permissible in light of
clearly established law and the information Defendant possessed at the time of
the shooting. See Austin v. Hamilton, 945 F.2d 1155, 1158 (10th Cir.1991). We
review a determination on the issue of qualified immunity de novo. Dixon v.
Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1460 (10th Cir.1991). Upon consideration of the record
and the parties' arguments, we affirm.
home late at night. Because decedent, at the time of the shooting, had a clearly
established constitutional right to be free from the use of force alleged, see
Trujillo v. Goodman, 825 F.2d 1453, 1457 (10th Cir.1987), Plaintiffs have met
their burden. Defendant argues that the district court erred in failing to
determine, for purposes of his qualified immunity defense, whether that right
should be analyzed under the Fourth or the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree
with the district court that Plaintiffs' allegations satisfy their burden under either
amendment. See Martin v. Board of County Comm'rs, 909 F.2d 402, 407 n. 5
(10th Cir.1990).
9
Once Plaintiffs met their burden, the burden shifted to Defendant, requiring
him to establish that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that he was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Dixon, 922 F.2d at 1460. In support
of his motion for summary judgment, Defendant relied on his own testimony
that, as he approached Plaintiffs' residence to investigate the disturbance,
decedent suddenly exited the house, squared around to face Defendant, while
crouching in shooting stance. Defendant further testified that decedent then
pointed a lever-action rifle at Defendant, while activating the lever to feed a
round of ammunition into the firing chamber. Defendant asserted that, because
he was thus under an imminent threat to his life, he was justified in using
deadly force against decedent.
10
11
Defendant further argues, however, that the district court erred in considering
the testimony of two of Plaintiffs' experts, Charles Wilber, Ph.D., and Anthony
Although the district court indicated that it would reserve ruling on Defendant's
motion to strike until trial, it is also clear that the district court considered the
experts' testimony in denying the summary judgment motion. Because review
of the record indicates that the testimony of both experts was clearly
admissible, the district court did not err in considering that evidence.
13
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is
AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is DENIED.
Honorable John E. Conway, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico, sitting by designation
**
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3