Kisela v. Hughes

In 2010, Andrew Kisela (defendant), a police officer, shot Amy Hughes (plaintiff) while responding to a report that Hughes was acting erratically with a kitchen knife. When Kisela and two other police officers arrived on the scene, Hughes’s roommate, Sharon Chadwick, was standing in the driveway of the house that Hughes and Chadwick shared. Hughes walked out of the house holding a kitchen knife at her side, stopped about six feet away from Chadwick, and proceeded to speak to Chadwick. Kisela and the other officers believed that Hughes posed a threat to Chadwick and commanded Hughes to drop the knife, which Hughes may or may not have heard. About a minute later, without identifying himself as a police officer or giving Hughes any warning that he would shoot, Kisela shot Hughes four times. At the time of the shooting, Hughes appeared calm and was not threatening or pointing the knife at Chadwick or the police officers, and the officers had not observed any erratic or aggressive behavior. Hughes sued Kisela in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Kisela had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Kisela, holding that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields police officers from lawsuits for actions taken while on duty if such actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that, viewing the facts in favor of Hughes, qualified immunity did not apply because Kisela’s actions amounted to a constitutional violation that was clearly established by Ninth Circuit precedent. The Ninth Circuit denied Kisela’s petition for a rehearing en banc, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.