Petersen v. Lewis County et al, No. 3:2012cv05908 - Document 58 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER granting 24 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Petersen v. Lewis County et al Doc. 58 1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 STEVEN O. PETERSEN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. CASE NO. C12-5908 RBL ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. # 24 & #27) LEWIS COUNTY and MATTHEW MCKNIGHT, Defendants. 16 17 This case is the result of Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew McKnight shooting 18 and killing Steven V. Petersen (“Steven”) on June 20, 2011. Steven was suspected of forcibly 19 attempting to break into an acquaintance’s mobile home and was thought to be armed with a 20 large knife. When McKnight found and confronted Steven, Steven started to pace back and 21 forth, refused to take one of his hands out of his pocket, and repeatedly ignored McKnight’s 22 commands to get on the ground. The brief stand-off came to an end when McKnight shot and 23 killed Steven because he thought that Steven was charging towards him. It was discovered after 24 25 26 27 the shooting that Steven did not actually have a knife when he was killed. Steven’s father, Steven O. Petersen (“Plaintiff”), is the named Plaintiff in this suit as Steven’s estate’s personal representative and as guardian of Steven’s minor son, L.P. McKnight 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and Lewis County are the Defendants. Plaintiff claims that McKnight is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 2 1983 for violating Steven’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force and for violating 3 L.P.’s Fourteenth Amendment right to the companionship and society of his father by killing 4 Steven. Plaintiff has also asserts § 1983 Monell claims against Lewis County for McKnight’s 5 6 7 alleged constitutional violations and negligence claims against both McKnight and the County. Defendants have asserted a counter-claim for malicious prosecution. 8 Currently before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #24) 9 and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ counterclaims (Dkt. #27). The 10 main issues are whether McKnight violated Steven’s Fourth Amendment rights by using 11 excessive force, whether McKnight is entitled to qualified immunity even if he did, and, if 12 McKnight did use excessive force, whether the County is liable for McKnight’s transgression. 13 14 As explained below, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment even though the 15 reasonableness of McKnight’s use-of-force cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation 16 because McKnight is entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiff’s other claims fail as a matter 17 of law. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on Defendants’ counter-claims because he had 18 a good-faith basis for this lawsuit. 19 I. BACKGROUND1 20 21 On June 20, 2011, just before 2:00 a.m., Jared Brockman and Anita Mecca called 911 22 from Mecca’s Napavine, WA mobile home because a man was trying to break into the home. 23 Brockman identified the intruder as “Steven Petersen” and described what he thought Steven was 24 wearing. Steven had apparently been staying at Mecca’s mobile home during the weeks prior to 25 26 1 The background section is based on all of the evidence submitted to the Court, but it is worth noting that the Plaintiff is unable to dispute much of what happened because Steven was 27 killed and cannot offer his own version of events. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 1 the incident, but Mecca had told him to leave and not to return. While Mecca and Brockman 2 were on the phone with the dispatcher, Steven tried to kick the door down, beat on Brockman’s 3 truck, and stabbed the front door with a knife. Steven fled from the scene before the police 4 arrived. An officer who responded to the house confirmed that the suspect had used a large knife 5 6 to stab the front door. 7 McKnight was one of the officers to respond to Brockman and Mecca’s 911 call. 8 McKnight was told to go to the intersection of 3rd and Vine to help establish a perimeter until a 9 K-9 unit arrived. While at that intersection, McKnight saw someone in his rearview mirror a few 10 blocks behind him. McKnight turned his car around and drove closer to investigate. McKnight 11 shined his spotlight on the individual in the middle of the road. Because the person closely 12 matched the suspect’s description, McKnight believed that he was the suspect. He was correct. 13 14 Believing that Steven was armed with a knife, McKnight informed dispatch that he was 15 “out with one,” and then he exited his patrol vehicle. He stood in the “V” between the open door 16 and the car and made contact with Steven. When McKnight got out of his car, Steven’s right 17 hand was visible, but his left hand was concealed in his sweatshirt pocket. McKnight identified 18 himself as a police officer and told Steven that he needed to see his hands. 19 Steven started to pace back and forth in the street and kept his left hand hidden inside of 20 21 his pocket. Because Steven did not comply and was acting erratically, McKnight drew his gun. 22 He continued to repeatedly order Steven to show his hands, but Steven continued to ignore his 23 commands. McKnight ordered Steven to get on the ground, but Steven refused and said, “that 24 ain’t going to happen, buddy.” McKnight claims that he saw the muscles in Steven’s arm flex 25 and his whole body posture change. Then, Steven leaned forward and took two steps towards 26 McKnight. McKnight does not remember how fast Steven moved towards him, but one witness 27 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3 1 saw the incident from her front window. She claims that Steven “rushed forward.” McKnight 2 believed that Steven was going to stab him, so he shot him four times, killing him instantly. A 3 number of witnesses nearby heard McKnight order Steven to get on the ground and show his 4 hands just before the shots were fired. Steven was 20-25 feet away from McKnight’s patrol car 5 6 when he was shot. As it turns out, Steven was unarmed. He may have been holding his wallet in 7 his right hand, but he did not have anything in his concealed hand, and he did not have a weapon 8 in his possession. The entire interaction lasted 1 minute and 11 seconds. 9 II. 10 DISCUSSION Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to 11 the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary 12 judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to 13 14 summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to present, by affidavits, depositions, answers to 15 interrogatories, or admissions on file, “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 16 trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of 17 evidence in support of the non-moving party’s position is not sufficient.” Triton Energy Corp. v. 18 Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). Factual disputes whose resolution would not 19 affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary 20 21 judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In other words, 22 “summary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from 23 which a reasonable [fact finder] could return a [decision] in its favor.” Triton Energy, 68 F.3d at 24 1220. 25 26 A. Excessive Force Claim Plaintiff claims that McKnight used excessive force when he shot and killed Steven. He 27 contends as a threshold matter that Steven did not pose an immediate threat to McKnight’s safety 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4 1 when he was shot, so deadly force could not have been justified. He also contends that 2 McKnight unreasonably failed to consider and utilize alternative options short of using deadly 3 force, like calling for backup or warning Steven that he would be shot if he did not halt. 4 Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition 5 6 of unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may only 7 use such force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. Scott v. Harris, 550 8 U.S. 372, 383, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The reasonableness of a particular use 9 of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with 10 the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir.2001) (citing 11 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865). 12 To determine whether an officer used excessive force, the nature and quality of the 13 14 intrusion must be weighed against the countervailing governmental interest in the use of force. 15 Id. That evaluation must be based on all of the circumstances known to the officer on the scene. 16 Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 701 (9th Cir. 2005). Important considerations include (1) 17 the severity of the crime or situation that the officer was responding to; (2) whether the plaintiff 18 posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others; (3) whether the plaintiff was 19 actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; (4) the amount of time and any 20 21 changing circumstances during which the officer had to determine the type and amount of force 22 that appeared to be necessary; and (5) the availability of alternative methods to subdue the 23 plaintiff. Id.; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989). The most important 24 of the articulated factors, especially when an officer has used deadly force, is whether the 25 plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. Mattos v. Agarano, 661 26 F.3d 433, 441 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force is highly 27 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5 1 fact-dependent, so parties are rarely entitled to summary judgment on the merits of an excessive 2 force claim. Smith, 394 F.3d at 701. 3 Plaintiff is unable to dispute that, based on the information available to McKnight at the 4 time, McKnight reasonably believed that Steven had a large knife. The fact that Steven did not 5 6 actually have a weapon cannot factor into the reasonableness analysis. But the inquiry is not 7 over just because Steven was thought to be armed. “[T]he mere fact that a suspect possesses a 8 weapon does not justify deadly force,” Haugen v. Brosseau, 351 F.3d 372, 381 (9th Cir. 2003), 9 but threatening an officer with a weapon does, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 10 1234 (9th Cir. 2013). 11 The question presented in this case, therefore, is whether a suspect who is armed with a 12 knife and 20-25 feet away from an officer is an immediate threat to the officer’s safety as soon as 13 14 he starts “rushing” towards the officer and whether it is reasonable for an officer to use deadly 15 force in that situation without first warning the suspect that he will be shot if he does not halt.2 16 This is quintessentially a question of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. A 17 reasonable jury could conclude that it was unreasonable for McKnight to shoot a man that he 18 thought was armed with a knife who was still 20-25 feet away, at least without first warning him 19 that he would be shot. But a reasonable jury could also conclude that McKnight reasonably 20 21 perceived Steven as a threat to his own safety based on all of the circumstances and that he had 22 23 24 2 Plaintiff also argues that McKnight could have called for backup before confronting Steven as a reasonable alternative to using deadly force. Notably, Plaintiff does not argue that 26 McKnight should have called for backup after Steven started to advance towards him and the need to use force materialized. Thus, calling for backup was not an alternative to using force at all and McKnight’s decision to not call for backup before exiting his vehicle will not be 27 considered in the reasonableness evaluation. 25 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6 1 to react immediately before Steven was close enough to attack. The Court cannot say as a matter 2 of law whether McKnight’s use of force was or was not reasonable. 3 B. Qualified Immunity 4 An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right that he or she allegedly 5 6 violated was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. Pearson v. Callahan, 7 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). The relevant inquiry is whether “it 8 would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he 9 confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2156 (2001). Thus, even though the 10 11 Court cannot say as a matter of law whether McKnight’s use of force was reasonable, he may nevertheless be entitled to summary judgment if it was not clearly established at the time that his 12 conduct would violate Steven’s Fourth Amendment rights. 13 14 Plaintiff contends that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it would not be 15 permissible to shoot an unarmed, unidentified man without warning from 25 feet away who does 16 not pose an immediate threat to the officer. While that may be true, that is not the question 17 before the Court. Again, the inquiry must be based on the facts and circumstances known to 18 McKnight at the time. Most importantly, Steven was suspected of forcibly attempting to break 19 into an occupied mobile home, was thought to be armed with a large knife, and had repeatedly 20 ignored McKnight’s commands to show his hands and get down on the ground. While a jury 21 22 could conclude that McKnight misjudged the immediateness of the threat that Steven posed to 23 his safety, there was no Supreme Court or circuit precedent at the time that would have given 24 him fair warning that he could not use deadly force without waiting for Steven to advance 25 further. Plaintiff cites no analogous cases to support his assertion that the law was clearly 26 established such that McKnight was on notice that his conduct would violate Steven’s rights. 27 Accordingly, McKnight is entitled to qualified immunity. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7 1 C. 2 A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior. 3 Municipal Liability Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. Of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978). For a 4 local governmental entity to be liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that “‘action pursuant 5 6 to official municipal policy’ caused [his or her] injury.” Connick v. Thompson, __ U.S. __, 131 7 S.Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691). In this context, “official policy” 8 includes a government’s lawmakers’ decisions, its policymaking officials’ acts, and practices so 9 persistent and widespread that they constitute standard operating procedure. Id. 10 11 A governmental entity’s decision not to train its employees in a particular respect may rise to the level of an official governmental policy for Monell liability in limited circumstances. 12 Id. To impose § 1983 liability, a municipality’s failure to train must amount to “‘deliberate 13 14 indifference to the rights of persons with whom the [untrained employees] come into contact.’” 15 Id. (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989)). Deliberate 16 indifference is a stringent standard. Id. at 1360. It requires proof that the municipality 17 disregarded a known or obvious consequence of its action or inaction. Id. Thus, in this context, a 18 municipality can only be liable for its failure to adequately train its employees if it had actual or 19 constructive notice that its training program would cause its employees to violate citizens’ 20 constitutional rights. Ordinarily, a plaintiff must show a pattern of similar constitutional 21 22 23 24 25 26 violations by untrained employees to establish deliberate indifference for purposes of failure to train. Id. Plaintiff’s first Monell claim theory is that Lewis County failed to adequately train McKnight. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the County failed to train McKnight to provide a verbal warning prior to using deadly force, when feasible, and when to call for backup. Plaintiff 27 has presented no evidence, however, that the County did not train McKnight to provide verbal 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8 1 warnings or that his use of force training was otherwise inadequate. Plaintiff certainly has not 2 presented evidence that shows a pattern of similar constitutional violations, and he has not 3 otherwise established that the County was on notice that its training program would cause one if 4 its employees to violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s assertion that McKnight was 5 6 7 8 9 10 not adequately trained is pure speculation, so his failure-to-train Monell claim fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s next Monell claim theory is that the County’s official policy was for officers to not give verbal warnings prior to using deadly force, even when feasible. This argument is, frankly, absurd. Plaintiff points to the fact that the County did not have an explicit policy that a 11 verbal warning should be given before using deadly force, when feasible, and the County’s 12 conclusion that McKnight did not violate County policy when he shot Steven to reach its 13 14 ridiculous conclusion. Just because the County does not have an explicit policy regarding verbal 15 warnings, it does not mean that the County’s policy is to not give warnings. Likewise, just 16 because the County found that McKnight’s use of force was acceptable even though he did not 17 give a warning, it does not mean that the County has a policy that warnings should not be given 18 when feasible. Indeed, Lewis County Sheriff Steve Mansfield testified that it was the County’s 19 policy to give warnings before using deadly force, if feasible. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion 20 21 for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Monell claims must be granted. 22 D. 14th Amendment Claim 23 Plaintiff has also asserted a § 1983 claim on behalf of Steven’s minor son. He claims that 24 McKnight’s alleged excessive force violated L.P.’s Fourteenth Amendment right to 25 “companionship and society” of his father. 26 The Ninth Circuit recognizes the right to a parent or child’s companionship and society as 27 a protected liberty interest. Curnow ex rel. Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321, 325 (9th 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9 1 Cir. 1991). To establish an actionable due process violation, a plaintiff must show that the 2 official’s conduct that deprived the parent or child of that interest “shocks the conscience.” 3 Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010). When considering whether excessive 4 force shocks the conscience, if the officer makes a snap judgment because of an escalating 5 6 7 8 9 10 situation and does not have time to deliberate, then his conduct can shock the conscience only if “he acts with a purpose to harm unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives.” Id. Here, McKnight’s decision to shoot Steven was a snap judgment that he made without the luxury of deliberation. Accordingly, for Plaintiff to have a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim, he would have to show that McKnight shot Steven for some illegitimate 11 purpose not related to law enforcement objectives. There is no evidence that McKnight shot 12 Steven for any purpose other than self-defense. Indeed, Plaintiff does not claim otherwise. 13 14 Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim thus fails as a matter of law. 15 E. Negligence Claim 16 Petersen alleges that McKnight was negligent by “fail[ing] to take reasonable and 17 appropriate steps prior to and during his use of deadly force . . . .” McKnight argues that 18 Petersen’s negligence claims must be dismissed because he is entitled to state law qualified 19 immunity. It is unnecessary to consider whether McKnight is entitled to qualified immunity 20 under state law, however, because Petersen has not established that McKnight owed a duty to 21 22 23 24 25 26 him, individually; he has only alleged that McKnight breached a duty that he owed to the public in general. In Washington, a plaintiff who sues a public official for negligence must show that “‘the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the public in general (i.e., a duty to all is a duty to no one).’” Babcock v. 27 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10 1 Mason Co. Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wash.2d 774, 785, 30 P.3d 1261, 1267 (2001) (quoting Taylor 2 v. Stevens Co., 111 Wash.2d 159, 163, 759 P.2d 447 (1988) (internal citation omitted)). 3 Regarding the duty element, Petersen alleged in his Complaint: 4 5 6 7 41. Defendant McKnight, by virtue of his employment as [sic] law enforcement officer, owed a duty of reasonable and ordinary care to the citizens of Lewis County. The duty of care owed by McKnight includes, among other things, to not negligently or recklessly undertake official actions that needlessly create the situation to use deadly force against the citizens he is assigned to protect and serve. 8 9 10 11 42. Defendant McKnight owed this duty of care to Steven, who was a resident of Lewis County. Thus, according to Petersen’s own allegations, his theory is that McKnight breached a duty that he owed to the public in general. Because a duty to all is a duty to no one, McKnight is entitled 12 to judgment as a matter of law on Petersen’s negligence claim. 13 14 15 F. Negligent Training and Supervision Claim In Washington, plaintiffs have a cause of action for negligent training and supervision 16 against an employer only if the employee acted outside the scope of his or her employment. 17 LaPlant v. Snohomish County, 162 Wn. App. 476, 479-80, 271 P.3d 254, 256-57 (2011). If an 18 employee is negligent within the scope of his or her employment, then the employer can be held 19 liable under the theory of vicarious liability and a claim for negligent training and supervision is 20 not available. Id. Petersen has alleged, and no one disputes, that Officer McKnight was acting 21 22 23 within the course and scope of his employment when he shot and killed Petersen. Plaintiff’s claim against the County for negligent training and supervision is thus barred as a matter of law. 24 G. 25 Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on Defendants’ malicious prosecution counterclaim. 26 27 Malicious Prosecution Counterclaims In a civil malicious prosecution action, the action itself must be groundless and motivated by malice. Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., 92 Wn.2d, 956, 963 (1979). Here, although 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11 1 Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims, the action certainly is 2 not groundless. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s are entitled to summary judgment on Defendants’ 3 counterclaims. 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 6 For the reasons stated above, McKnight is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 7 1983 excessive force claim and all of Plaintiff’s other claims fail as a matter of law. 8 Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Defendants’ counterclaims. 9 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims (Dkt. #24) 10 and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaims (Dkt. # 27) are both 11 GRANTED. 12 Dated this 13th day of February, 2014. 13 15 A 16 RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
