Knibbs v. Momphard

Decision Date30 March 2022
Docket Number20-2243
Citation30 F.4th 200
Parties Melissa B. KNIBBS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Scott Knibbs, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Anthony MOMPHARD, Jr., Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of the Macon County Sheriff's Department ; Robert Holland, in his Official capacity as the Sheriff of Macon County; Western Surety Company, a South Dakota Corporation; The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, a New Hampshire Corporation, Defendants – Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED: Mark R. Melrose, MELROSE LAW, PLLC, Waynesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Bader, CRANFILL SUMNER LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Adam R. Melrose, MELROSE LAW, PLLC, Waynesville, North Carolina; Joshua D. Nielsen, NIELSEN LAW, PLLC, Waynesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Patrick H. Flanagan, Stephanie H. Webster, CRANFILL SUMNER LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in which Judge Rushing joined. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion.

AGEE, Circuit Judge:

In the course of responding to a dispute between neighbors just after midnight on April 30, 2018, Deputy Sheriff Anthony Momphard, Jr., of the Macon County, North Carolina, Sheriff's Office fatally shot Michael Knibbs while Knibbs was standing inside his home holding a loaded shotgun. Knibbs’ widow, Melissa Knibbs, as personal representative of his Estate ("the Estate"), subsequently brought this action, asserting that Deputy Momphard used excessive force in violation of Knibbs’ Fourth Amendment rights, along with various related state law claims. The district court held that Deputy Momphard was entitled to qualified immunity from the Estate's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and that the Estate's state law claims against Deputy Momphard, Macon County Sheriff Robert Holland, and the insurance companies that issued the Sheriff's Office a liability insurance policy and a surety bond (collectively, "Defendants") necessarily failed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's judgment in part, vacate it in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Because this case was decided at the summary judgment stage, we review the facts in the light most favorable to the Estate as the non-moving party. Walker v. Donahoe , 3 F.4th 676, 682 (4th Cir. 2021). That means that "we may not credit [Defendants’] evidence, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes in ... [D]efendants’ favor." Hensley ex rel. North Carolina v. Price , 876 F.3d 573, 579 (4th Cir. 2017).

A.
1.

Mr. Knibbs lived in a standalone home on Pheasant Drive in Macon County, North Carolina, with his wife, their minor son, their adult daughter, and her infant son. Pheasant Drive is a one-lane, private, dead-end, dirt road in a rural area without streetlights.

Shelton Freeman and his two roommates rented a house at the end of Pheasant Drive, which they could only access by driving past Knibbs’ home. On the evening of Sunday, April 29, 2018, Freeman hosted a bonfire for several guests. One guest, Tanner, mistakenly pulled into Knibbs’ driveway thinking it was Freeman's, and asked Knibbs for directions. A verbal altercation ensued in which Knibbs asked Tanner if he was going to his neighbor's house "to buy drugs" or "buy pills." J.A. 819. Knibbs then kicked Tanner's bumper "and told him to leave, get out of the driveway." Id. Knibbs had formed the belief that Freeman and his roommates posed a danger to his family in part because he suspected that they dealt drugs out of their home.

Sometime after sunset, one of Freeman's guests left the bonfire and began driving on Pheasant Drive towards Knibbs’ home when she came upon several wooden boards laid in the middle of the road that appeared to have nails sticking up. She returned to Freeman's house to report what she saw. Based on his prior interactions with Knibbs,1 Freeman called 911 at 11:41 p.m. to request police assistance.

Deputy Momphard was dispatched to the scene at 11:47 p.m. and arrived at 11:55 p.m. in his marked patrol vehicle. He wore his full standard issue uniform, which included his tactical vest, belt, handcuffs, firearm, and "everything [else] that a law enforcement officer has." J.A. 415. He parked his vehicle on Pheasant Drive––not in Knibbs’ driveway—because of the wooden boards, which had "nails that could catch [his] tire and pop it." J.A. 231. Deputy Momphard did not activate his blue emergency light equipment.2

Seeing a light on in Knibbs’ home, and thinking that the 911 call originated from that house, Deputy Momphard approached it. He recalled that "some form of light" was on in what he believed was the living room area, but there is no evidence that any of the house's exterior lights were on. J.A. 239. Deputy Momphard went to the home's northern-most entrance and announced "sheriff's office ... two or three times." J.A. 238. No one responded, so he tried knocking on a door on the eastern side of the home and again twice announced, "sheriff's office." J.A. 239. He heard a dog bark inside, but no one answered the door.

Deputy Momphard then saw lights coming from Freeman's home, so he went there and made contact with Freeman, who explained the reason he called. While talking with the officer, Freeman saw the lights inside Knibbs’ home go off. He pointed this out to Deputy Momphard to underscore that Knibbs and his family were home.

Deputy Momphard then decided to return to Knibbs’ home to investigate further. He admitted that initially he "did not know one way or the other" whether a crime had been committed. J.A. 233. But in his view, "[i]f Mr. Knibbs said, ‘I threw those boards out there to pop tires,’ that would be a criminal matter," J.A. 234, specifically attempted willful and wanton injury to personal property, a misdemeanor under North Carolina law, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-160 (crime of willful damage to personal property); id. § 14–2.5 (crime of attempt).

2.

As Deputy Momphard approached the southernmost entrance to Knibbs’ home, Freeman followed behind and began removing boards from Pheasant Drive approximately 20 to 30 feet away from Deputy Momphard. Both men observed that there were no lights on inside the house, and there were no lights illuminating the outside of the house. To that end, Mrs. Knibbs explained that prior to her and her husband retiring to their bedroom, as part of her nightly routine she turned out all of the lights in the home. She later indicated that there was a "little lamp" in their dining room that "gave off a little light," so "[y]ou could see a little bit." J.A. 526. The record is not clear, however, whether that light was on during the events in question. Deputy Momphard repeatedly testified at his deposition that there were no lights on inside the house.

Deputy Momphard came upon a small rectangular porch that led to what Freeman told him was the most trafficked entrance and exit to Knibbs’ home, the southern entrance. The porch was approximately 11’ long and 13’ wide. As Deputy Momphard stood at the bottom of the porch's four stairs, a doorway was directly in front of him. Both the door and the exterior storm door were closed. There were two large (51" x 31") windows immediately to the left of the doorway. To Deputy Momphard's right––and running all along the eastern portion of the porch––was one of the exterior walls of the home. On the other side of that wall were Mr. and Mrs. Knibbs’ bedroom and a laundry room. According to Deputy Momphard, the following events occurred over the span of about one minute.

Deputy Momphard stood on the first step of the porch and announced, "sheriff's office." J.A. 266–67. He then immediately heard someone "walk[ ] around inside of the room next to [him]." J.A. 280. Mrs. Knibbs later confirmed that she and her husband were awake in their bedroom and heard Deputy Momphard's announcement. The blinds on their bedroom window, which overlooked the porch, were closed, so they could not see who was outside. Mr. Knibbs reacted by grabbing the all-black, pump-action shotgun he kept by his bed.

He told his wife before leaving their bedroom, "[a]nybody can say they are a sheriff." J.A. 518. He then walked towards the porch door.

Meanwhile, outside, Deputy Momphard could hear Knibbs’ footsteps as he approached the front door, but then he heard them "stop[ ] briefly," J.A. 290, so he paused on "the second step or third step," J.A. 281. At this point, Deputy Momphard heard "a rack of a shotgun," id. , which was also loud enough for Mrs. Knibbs to hear in her bedroom.

While Deputy Momphard recognized that Knibbs "ha[d] a right to come to the door with [a] firearm," he believed that the act of racking it meant that he was "going to use the shotgun on me." J.A. 308–09. In an interview with an investigator from the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation ("NCSBI") about thirty-six hours after the incident, Deputy Momphard stated that he recalled thinking that Knibbs was "going to shoot me through the door." J.A. 1342 at 45:17–22.

Instead of stepping back into the yard, Deputy Momphard proceeded onto the porch to seek cover in its northeast corner, where there was a 40" gap between the door and the porch's eastern wall. From there, he yelled out, "Drop it." J.A. 319. There was no audible response.

Deputy Momphard testified that he thought at the time that no matter what move he made next, "I was going to get shot either way.... I'm stuck on the porch, which is—it's a common understanding that the porch is a bad place for law enforcement. Law enforcement get shot on the porch." J.A. 330–31. Or, as Deputy Momphard more specifically phrased it during his NCSBI interview: "I felt like I was being hunted." J.A. 1342 at 48:55–49:02; see also J.A. 303 (Deputy Momphard testifying at his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Cannon v. Peck
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 8, 2022
    ...and scope of a claimed immunity." Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's Cnty. , 309 F.3d 224, 231 (4th Cir. 2002) ; see Knibbs v. Momphard , 30 F.4th 200, 229–30 (4th Cir. 2022) (looking to North Carolina law to determine whether the county sheriff's office, as well as the sheriff and deputy, had......
  • Groce v. Jackson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • August 24, 2022
    ...employee's negligent conduct ‘by purchasing liability insurance, but only to the extent of the insurance coverage.'” Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200, 229 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Estate of Earley ex rel. Earley v. Haywood Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 204 N.C.App. 338, 341, 694 S.E.2d 405, 4......
  • Johnson v. Balt. Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 30, 2022
    ... ... to the nonmoving party. Ricci , 557 U.S. at 585-86; ... Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 475 U.S. at 587; accord ... Knibbs v. Momphand , 30 F.4th 200, 206 (4th Cir ... 2022); Walker v. Donahoe , 3 F.4th 676, 682 (4th Cir ... 2021); Hannah P. v. Coats , 916 ... ...
  • Ervin v. Corizon Health
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • October 3, 2022
    ...the 22 witnesses' credibility.” Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002); see Knibbs v. Momphand, 30 F.4th 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2022); Walker v. Donahoe, 3 F.4th 676, 682 (4th Cir. 2021); Hannah P. v. Coats, 916 F.3d 327, 336 (4th Cir. 2019); Roland v. Un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT