Background
Katrina Danielle Mateen, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Kenneth Nassar. The underlying incident involved the fatal shooting of Mateen’s fifteen-year-old son, Jaheim McMillan, during a police encounter. Officers responded to a report of a vehicle with occupants brandishing firearms. McMillan fled on foot, held a handgun, and turned to face Officer Nassar after being ordered to drop the weapon. The district court dismissed claims against the City and granted summary judgment to the officer on qualified immunity grounds.
The court’s reasoning
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court noted it need not decide whether the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment because the plaintiff failed to show a violation of clearly established law. The court explained that clearly established law must be defined with specificity and cannot be at too high a level of generality. While the plaintiff cited Tennessee versus Garner and Graham versus Connor, the court found these cases do not create clearly established law outside of obvious cases. The court distinguished the plaintiff’s reliance on Cole versus Carson, noting that case involved a suicidal teenager who did not threaten others or flee through a public area with a gun. The court concluded that existing precedent did not place the question beyond debate given the suspect was armed, fleeing, and turned to face the officer.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that qualified immunity protects officers in rapidly unfolding encounters involving armed suspects who refuse commands, even if the specific facts differ from prior cases, unless the violation is obvious.