Foster v. Hellawell, No. 17-55167 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs filed suit against Officer Jeremy Hellawell under 42 U.S.C. 1983, after the officer fatally shot and killed Ernest Foster. The district court denied the officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider questions of evidentiary sufficiency on interlocutory review, and thus dismissed the officer's appeal of the district court's order with respect to the claims that the shooting violated Foster's Fourth Amendment right and plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights. The panel reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims, holding that the officer's actions during the investigative stop did not violate any clearly established law. In this case, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate Foster after the 911 call warning of an armed man matching Foster's description, and unholstering a gun during the stop did not constitute a violation of Foster's right to be free from excessive force.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel dismissed in part an appeal from the district court’s order denying qualified immunity, and reversed in part the order, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that a police officer conducted an unlawful investigatory stop and used excessive deadly force when he shot Ernest Foster three times in the back during a response to a 911 call. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction, on interlocutory review, to consider questions of evidentiary sufficiency as to FOSTER V. HELLAWELL 3 the claims that the shooting violated Foster’s Fourth Amendment right and the surviving family’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. The panel held that on interlocutory appeal it could not reweigh the evidence to evaluate whether the district court properly determined there was a genuine issue of material fact, and therefore could neither credit defendant’s testimony that Foster turned and pointed a gun at defendant, nor assume that Foster took other actions that would have been objectively threatening. Addressing plaintiffs’ claim that the officer violated Foster’s Fourth Amendment rights by making an investigative stop of Foster and by approaching him with an unholstered gun, the panel held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claims because the facts were undisputed and the appeal raised a purely legal issue. The panel held that the officer did not violate clearly established law when he concluded, based on the 911 call, that he had reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate Foster. The panel further held that a reasonable officer in defendant’s position could reasonably conclude that unholstering a gun during the stop did not constitute a violation of Foster’s right to be free from excessive force. Dissenting, Judge Ikuta stated that she disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim. Judge Ikuta wrote that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could find that the officer acted with a purpose to harm Foster for reasons unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives. 4 FOSTER V. HELLAWELL
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.