This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
[N]o court can expect any human being to remain passive
in the face of an active threat .... Before employing
deadly force, police must have sound reason to believe that
the suspect poses a serious threat to their safety or the
safety of others. Officers need not be absolutely sure,
however, of the nature of the threat or the suspect's
intent to cause them harm—the Constitution does not
require that certitude precede the act of self protection.
Elliott, 99 F.3d at 644. Thus, even if Gibson had used excessive
force against Plaintiff, he did not violate a clearly established
constitutional right of Plaintiff.
Therefore, as an alternative holding to the Court' s finding that
Gibson is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not use
excessive force against Plaintiff, Gibson is also entitled to
qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established
constitutional right of Plaintiff. As such, Gibson's Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED on both prongs of the qualified immunity
analysis and he is DISMISSED from this action.
IV. CONCLUSION
The events that took place on December 12, 2012 were devastating
and tragic, and the Court recognizes that Plaintiff's injuries have
drastically altered his way of life. However, the state of the law
regarding the issues presented is clear, and the Court must grant
Defendants' motions.
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant Hollandsworth's
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED, and Defendant
Gibson's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 62, is GRANTED. As
51Jump to an indexed page (4 of 4)