Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Mohamed v. Jones, Huddleston, Osagie, Brush, Espinoza, Miller, Murton and Armijo
Federal Bureau of Prisons officials are accused of beating Khalfan Khamis Mohamed while other officials watched. Mohamed brought Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against several prison officials, contending U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics provided him a cause of action.
The bureau defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bivens doesn’t extend to Mohamed’s claims. The district courts denied their motion.
The bureau defendants sought interlocutory review. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Lyndell Daniels was detained by law enforcement who, by using his name, connected Daniels to a stolen Glock and charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Daniels moved to suppress his name as the fruit of an unlawful investigative detention, arguing the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain him. The district court agreed and granted his motion.
On appeal, the U.S. argued the district court erred because there was reasonable suspicion to detain Daniels.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found in its de novo review that the totality of the circumstances known by the officer who detained Daniels didn’t amount to reasonable suspicion. As such, Daniels’ detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court’s grant of Daniels’ motion to suppress was proper.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Shamikle Jackson called 911 to report two people were dead inside an apartment and he was holding others hostage. He said it was a life-threatening emergency and his remaining hostages only had a few minutes left.
Aurora Police Officers arrived at the scene. They first encountered Jackson’s sister at the apartment in no apparent distress. She said her brother was home but didn’t know whether anyone inside the apartment was hurt.
As the officers began to search Jackson’s apartment, they received a radio call that the sister believed Jackson was alone, unarmed and might have mental health problems. The officers continued down a hallway to the back bedroom. Jackson emerged from the bedroom and advanced toward the officers with a machete. He was shot and killed.
Jackson’s parents sued the officers for using unconstitutionally excessive force. The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. It concluded a reasonable jury could find the officers recklessly created the need to use deadly force, thereby unreasonably violating Jackson’s constitutional rights under clearly established law.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found the officers had a split second to respond to a deadly threat posed by Jackson. In these circumstances, it wasn’t clearly established the officers recklessly created a situation where the use of deadly force was necessary and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, according to the opinion.
The 10th Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the officers.