Royal E. Claybrook, Jr., Gwannette Claybrook, and Petrece Claybrook, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Royal Claybrook, Sr. v. Jesse Birchwell, Steve Lewis, and Ken Spencer
Docket: 01-5073
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; December 20, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Defendants Jesse Birchwell, Steve Lewis, and Ken Spencer, officers of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, appeal the denial of their summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity in a case involving the shooting death of Royal Claybrook, Sr. The plaintiffs, co-administrators of Claybrook's estate, allege excessive force was used when officers shot him while he was guarding a shotgun outside the F. J Market as his daughter-in-law retrieved cash deposits. The district court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the circumstances of the incident, which precluded a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The defendants contend that these factual disputes are not material to the qualified immunity claim. The appellate court acknowledges some disagreement with the district court's reasoning but agrees that material facts remain unresolved, thus affirming the lower court's decision and remanding for further proceedings.
The case background reveals that on February 28, 1995, the officers were engaged in surveillance in a high-crime area when they observed Claybrook with a shotgun outside the market, prompting them to suspect a robbery. Officer Birchwell attempted to reposition their unmarked vehicle to maintain a tactical advantage while waiting for backup, which led to the events resulting in Claybrook's death.
A gunman, identified as Claybrook, positioned himself threateningly behind a gray Maxima while his daughter-in-law, Quintana Claybrook, worked at a market serving as a front for an illegal gambling operation. Due to previous thefts, Claybrook routinely accompanied Quintana, armed, to ensure her safety. On February 28, 1995, when police arrived, Quintana was inside the Maxima, unaware of her presence. An officer ordered Claybrook to drop his weapon, to which he retorted, leading to a chaotic exchange of gunfire. Quintana described hearing a loud noise and then realizing she had been shot in the back by a stray bullet. Despite her attempts to call 911, she later informed her husband of the situation while remaining crouched in the vehicle. During the ensuing firefight, Claybrook shot at the officers, hitting their cruiser. The officers claimed they identified themselves verbally and visually but were met with continued fire from Claybrook. Officer Birchwell was injured in the exchange and called for backup. Claybrook attempted to ambush the officers by moving to a strategic position but was ultimately shot by them after refusing to comply with orders to drop his weapon.
Marked police units and an ambulance arrived at the scene shortly after an incident that lasted one to two minutes. Royal E. Claybrook, Sr. was pronounced dead due to a fatal head wound, while Quintana Claybrook was seriously injured and transported to Vanderbilt University Hospital for emergency care and extended hospitalization. Plaintiffs, co-administrators of Claybrook, Sr.'s estate and Quintana Claybrook, filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, several police officers, and the police chief, alleging violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants sought dismissal for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, summary judgment. The district court granted these motions, dismissing Quintana's claims and affirming some claims for Royal Claybrook, Sr., specifically regarding unlawful arrest and excessive use of police force.
On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal of Quintana's claims but reversed the dismissal of claims related to Royal Claybrook, Sr.'s rights. Upon remand, the defendants filed for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and insufficient evidence. The district court found no sufficient proof against Metro and granted summary judgment for the police chief and his successor. However, summary judgment was denied for claims of excessive force against the officers, as the court determined that material factual issues remained regarding their conduct. The current appeal focuses on whether the court has jurisdiction to review the officers' qualified immunity in light of the precedent set in Johnson v. Jones regarding appeals of summary judgment orders.
If factual disputes affecting the denial of summary judgment are immaterial to the legal issues on appeal, appellate jurisdiction may still be exercised. The defendants acknowledge disputed facts, particularly regarding conflicting testimonies about who fired the first shot in an incident involving Claybrook. The officers assert this dispute is irrelevant, arguing that the court should evaluate excessive force claims by examining the reasonableness of their actions only in the immediate moments before the fatal shot. However, the court finds this interpretation too narrow, asserting that the reasonableness of the officers' actions should be assessed from the moment the first shot was fired.
The court references its prior ruling in Dickerson v. McClellan, which established a segmented approach to analyzing excessive force claims by first assessing the legality of the officers' entry and then the use of deadly force. In that case, officers responding to a shots-fired call entered a residence without following proper protocol. After evaluating the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Dickerson, the court identified genuine issues of material fact that precluded a determination on qualified immunity, emphasizing the need to consider the totality of the circumstances rather than isolating particular actions.
In Boyd v. Baeppler, the court analyzed an excessive force claim involving police officers who shot and killed a suspect, Boyd, after he failed to stop when ordered and allegedly pointed a gun at them. The court segmented the analysis of the officers' use of force, determining that the relevant facts were those surrounding the final confrontation rather than Boyd's previous actions or potential criminal behavior. The majority held that the officers acted reasonably given their immediate perception of the threat posed by Boyd, leading to a reversal of the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
In the current case concerning Claybrook's death, the defendants argue that the analysis should also be segmented, focusing solely on the events immediately before the shooting. However, the court notes that the events are not easily divided as in Boyd and Dickerson. The defendants propose two segments: the officers' initial confrontation with Claybrook and the subsequent shots fired after he concealed himself. They assert that the earlier actions of approaching Claybrook in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle, without identifying themselves as police, are irrelevant to the reasonableness of their response during the shooting.
The analysis of the events surrounding the confrontation with Claybrook is segmented into three parts: the officers' approach, the initial firefight in front of the market, and the subsequent shots after Claybrook moved behind concrete steps. All events in the second and third segments are deemed relevant to the analysis of excessive force. Although the officers violated police policy in their approach, under established precedent (Dickerson), this unreasonableness does not factor into the excessive force evaluation. The defendants argue that the reasonableness of the force used during the initial firefight should be excluded; however, as the plaintiffs challenge all uses of deadly force against their deceased father, the reasonableness of the force in both the second and third segments must be considered. The initial shots fired by officers, perceived by Claybrook as an attack during a robbery, also fall under this scrutiny, necessitating an examination of their reasonableness. A critical aspect of this evaluation is determining who fired first, a fact currently in dispute, which affects jurisdiction under Johnson v. Jones. The conclusion affirms the district court's judgment denying qualified immunity to the defendants and remands the case for further proceedings. Additionally, there is a dispute regarding whether Royal Claybrook was injured in the initial gunfire, impacting the Fourth Amendment seizure consideration.
