Estate Of Ceballos v. Husk
Decision Date | 26 March 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 17-1216,17-1216 |
Citation | 919 F.3d 1204 |
Parties | ESTATE OF Jaime CEBALLOS ; Quianna Vigil; Naveyah Ceballos, through next friend; Jayden Ceballos, through next friend, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. William HUSK, individually; City of Thornton, Defendants - Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Courtney B. Kramer (Eric M. Ziporin with her on briefs) Senter Goldfarb & Rice, LLC, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants.
Erica T. Grossman (Anna Holland Edwards with her on the brief) Holland, Holland Edwards & Grossman, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before BACHARACH, EBEL, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Ceballos’s wife, Quianna Vigil, called police on an August evening in 2013 to report that her husband was in their driveway with a baseball bat "acting crazy," and that he was drunk and probably on drugs. Vigil further reported that she was afraid and had left the house with their seventeen-month-old; Vigil wanted police to remove Ceballos so she could return home to put the child to bed. Defendant William Husk and several other Thornton police officers responded. Within a minute of their arrival, Officer Husk shot Ceballos to death in the street in front of his home. Ceballos’s estate (also referenced herein as "Ceballos") and his surviving wife and children initiated this litigation against Officer Husk and the City of Thornton. Relevant here, Plaintiffs assert three claims: 1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Officer Husk, alleging he used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; 2) a § 1983 claim alleging the City failed to train Officer Husk adequately in how to handle situations involving individuals who are emotionally distraught or who have a diminished ability to reason; and 3) a state-law wrongful death tort claim against Husk. In this interlocutory appeal, Defendants challenge the district court’s decision to deny them summary judgment on each of these three claims. We AFFIRM the district court’s decision denying Officer Husk summary judgment on the § 1983 excessive-force claim. We DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction both the City’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment on the § 1983 failure-to-train claim as well as Husk’s appeal involving the state-law wrongful death claim.
As the district court indicated throughout its decision, there remain numerous disputed issues of material fact underlying the claims at issue in this case. But in this interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment premised in part on Officer Husk’s assertion of qualified immunity, we "take as given the district court’s assessment of what facts a reasonable jury could accept at trial," in light of the summary-judgment record. Walton v. Powell, 821 F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2016) (applying Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 317, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) ). Further, we "view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving part[ies] and resolve all factual disputes and reasonable inferences in [their] favor." Knopf v. Williams, 884 F.3d 939, 946 (10th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ceballos’s wife called 911 at 7:30 p.m. on August 30, 2013, reporting, among other things, that her husband was in the driveway of their home "with two [baseball] bats and acting crazy; that she was afraid and had her 17-month old daughter with her; that Ceballos was drunk and probably on drugs; and that two of Ceballos’ friends were with him." (Aplt. App. 707.) The 911 dispatcher issued a radio call regarding "a high priority disturbance involving a party armed with one or more bats, describing it as a ‘DK [drunk] unwanted party’ and a ‘disturbance.’ " (Id. ) The dispatcher also indicated that Ceballos "is known to have knives." (Id. 214.) "Radio traffic" further reported that Ceballos had been a " ‘walkaway’ from [a nearby medical center] the previous night." (Id. 707.)
The dispatcher sent officers further information about the situation over the "Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system" (id. 707)—including information that Ceballos had threatened his wife with a knife several months earlier and that he was not taking his anti-depression medication. Husk, however, did not look at the CAD.
(Id. 707-08.)
(Id. 709-10.)
(Id. 708-09.) Officer Snook, who had "sprinted" back to his car to get his beanbag shotgun (id. 709), had not yet returned when Ceballos was killed.
Officer Husk reported, after the incident, that he saw a knife in Ceballos’ other hand as the distance narrowed between the officers and Ceballos. [Ceballos’s friends] Castillo and Martinez say Ceballos was not carrying a knife. Officer Husk admits he never reported seeing this knife to any other officer until after he shot Ceballos, and that his commands to Ceballos were to drop the bat. Officers Ward and Snook and Commander Carbone did not see a knife until after Ceballos had been shot. A responding fire fighter reported seeing a closed pocketknife fall out of Ceballos’ pocket after he had been shot, as responders rolled him over.
(Id. 710.)
Every Thornton police officer is trained on the proper use of force, including deadly force. As for the use of force "against mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, or individuals in crisis," the City "offers a 40-hour Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) course." (Id. 710.)
CIT is specifically designed to train officers to deal with people in crisis by using techniques such as maintaining safety by using time and distance; taking steps to calm the situation by using quiet voices; avoiding getting too close, too fast; not rushing into the situation; assessing the need for backup; making a plan with fellow officers for the best course of action; gathering information from those on the scene; avoiding escalating the situation; communicating in a calm, non-threatening manner; not having multiple people giving commands at the same time; and containing the subject by establishing a perimeter.
(Id. )
CIT training is not mandatory for the City’s officers and only half of them are CIT-trained. Relevant here, Officer Husk was not CIT-trained, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jiron v. Roth
...it is not necessary for the plaintiff[s] to show clearly established existing law prohibiting such conduct." Estate of Ceballos v. Husk , 919 F.3d 1204, 1218 (10th Cir. 2019). Following the Tenth Circuit's lead in Estate of Ceballos , the Court does not address this potential argument becau......
-
Frasier v. Evans
...precedent ." (emphasis added)); accord Ullery v. Bradley , 949 F.3d 1282, 1291 (10th Cir. 2020) ; Est . of Ceballos v. Husk , 919 F.3d 1204, 1218 (10th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 703, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (stating that "each branch of the Go......
-
Rosales v. Bradshaw
...in Bond, quoting Est. of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2019), limited the application of its holding to a narrow set of facts: Ceballos . . . concludes that Allen . . . clearly that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment when his or her reckless or deliberate conduct results ......
-
Arnold v. City of Olathe
...Pauly , 874 F.3d at 1219 n.7 (" Sevier and Allen remain good law in this circuit."); see also Ceballos ex rel. Estate of Ceballos v. Husk , 919 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.2 (10th Cir. 2019) ("We recently affirmed this longstanding Tenth Circuit law, notwithstanding County of Los Angeles v. Mendez . ......
-
Reforming Qualified-Immunity Appeals.
...Municipal Piggybacking, supra note 19, at 125. (278) Blum, Monell Claim, supra note 42, at 829; see, e.g., Estate of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. (279) Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978). (280) Id. at 690; see generally Blum, Monell Claim, supra......
-
Appellate Law
...the collateral order doctrine) from denial of qualified immunity on federal civil rights claim). But see Estate of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204, 1221 (10th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing Moore and declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction where issues raised in city's appeal from denial of ......
-
Weekly Case Digests December 6, 2021 - December 10, 2021.
...contravened those settled principles here. Not one of the decisions relied upon by the Court of AppealsEstate of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F. 3d 1204 (CA10 2019), Hastings v. Barnes, 252 Fed. Appx. 197 (CA10 2007), Allen, 119 F. 3d 837, and Sevier v. Lawrence, 60 F. 3d 695 (CA10 1995)comes clos......