Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 08-30-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 21-11280
Judge: Jill Pryor
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on appeal from the Northern District of Georgia (Fulton County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Atlanta, Georgia civil litigation lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on 42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil Rights Act violation theories.
This case arises out of the shooting death of Jamarion Robinson. It requires us to decide whether video evidence creates a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether law enforcement officers used excessive force while trying to arrest Mr. Robinson.
A few weeks before the shooting, Ms. Robinson called the
police when her son attempted to set her house on fire. Mr. Robin-
son left before the police arrived, but the Gwinnett County Police
Department issued a warrant for his arrest. A short time later, two
Atlanta Police Department officers encountered Mr. Robinson
while responding to a call about a suspicious person. Mr. Robinson
pointed a handgun at one of the officers and fled the scene. A sec-
ond arrest warrant was issued against Mr. Robinson for aggravated
assault against a police officer.
The local police referred the case to the Task Force. A Task
Force officer spoke with Ms. Robinson, who told him that her son
“had become increasingly unstable, violent, and unpredictable.”
USCA11 Case: 21-11280 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 5 of 28
Doc. 248-5 at 3.2 She also told him that Mr. Robinson might be suf-
fering from unmedicated mental health issues. After some investi-
gation, the Task Force officer determined that Mr. Robinson was
living at his girlfriend’s townhouse apartment.
A Task Force team that included Officers Heinze, Hutchens,
Doyle, and several other officers assembled in a parking lot near
the apartment complex to prepare to arrest Mr. Robinson. Officer
Heinze carried a tactical shield and a Glock 22 handgun. Officer
Hutchens had an MP5 rifle set to semi-automatic. The MP5 did
“not have a burst fire setting.” Doc. 248-4 at 3. Officer Doyle carried
an H&K UMP .40—a submachine gun capable of shooting in
bursts. The team discussed Mr. Robinson’s attempted arson, his
previous encounter with police, his potential mental health issues,
and the possibility that he was carrying a gun. They planned to in-
itiate a knock-and-announce at the apartment door to give Mr.
Robinson an opportunity to surrender. If he did not respond, the
team agreed, they would breach the apartment door.
* * *
Outcome: The district court correctly granted summary judgment to
Officer Hutchens because he was entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court also correctly determined that Officers Doyle and
Heinze were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions before
the flashbang detonated. Accordingly, we affirm those portions of
the district court’s order. The district court erred, however, by
granting qualified immunity to Officers Doyle and Heinze for their
actions after the flashbang exploded. We therefore reverse the dis-
trict court’s order insofar as it granted them summary judgment on
Ms. Robinson’s claim that they employed excessive force after the
flashbang detonated. We remand for further proceedings con-
sistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN
PART.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: