Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls, et at.

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.



* * *

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.