Joshua Paul English, et al v. Officer Jonathan Fowler, et al, No. 22-10927 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiffs, survivors and the administrator of a man shot and killed by Defendant police officers filed a lawsuit alleging claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and battery and negligence under Georgia law. And it demanded monetary damages. Both officers moved for summary judgment. They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of excessive force. They also argued that they are entitled to official immunity under Georgia law from the claims of battery and negligence. The district court denied the officers’ motions.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Defendants’ appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over the denial of qualified or official immunity that turns on issues of evidentiary sufficiency. The court explained that in this case, the only issues in this appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency. In their motions for summary judgment, the officers argued that their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances because they encountered a suspect who had brandished a gun, discharged it at least once, and ignored their commands to show his hands. The officers argued that in the light of these facts when they saw the man move, they had actual and probable cause to use deadly force on him.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 22-10927 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Page: 1 of 10 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10927 ____________________ JOSHUA PAUL ENGLISH, as Surviving Parent of Adam Paul English, Deceased, LAURA LEAH KING, as Surviving Parent of Adam Paul English, Deceased, MIKE HINTON, Administrator of the Estate of Adam Paul English, versus Plainti s-Appellees, THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, Defendant, USCA11 Case: 22-10927 2 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 10 22-10927 OFFICER JONATHAN FOWLER, OFFICER JOSE HERNANDEZ, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00147-RWS ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and COOGLER,* Chief District Judge. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal invites us to decide whether two police o cers who fatally shot a suspect are entitled to summary judgment based on quali ed and o cial immunity. The district court denied summary judgment because it determined that the record raised a genuine issue of material fact. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction over a denial of quali ed or o cial immunity that turns on issues of evidentiary su ciency, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * Honorable L. Scott Coogler, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 22-10927 22-10927 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 10 3 I. BACKGROUND On September 20, 2019, a medical assistant in Gainesville, Georgia, was sitting at her desk when she heard a gunshot. She looked out her window and saw a man pointing a gun at himself and at cars passing by on Jesse Jewell Parkway. Someone in the of ce called 911. Several police o cers from the Gainesville Police Department, including Jonathan Fowler and Jose Hernandez, responded to the call around 4:30 p.m. While en route to the scene, both of cers heard the dispatcher say that hospital security guards had the suspect held at gunpoint. Fowler also heard that the suspect had discharged a round from his rearm. The o cers found the suspect, Adam Paul English, standing in a median outside a doctor’s o ce. The median was in a hightra c area—in front of a parking deck, across the street from a hospital, and adjacent to Jesse Jewell Parkway, which was busy with rush-hour tra c. Fowler rst saw English bent over at the waist with his right hand in a bag on the ground. Hernandez saw English holding a bag. Neither o cer saw English holding a gun or otherwise saw a gun on his person. A group of o cers, including Fowler and Hernandez, exited their vehicles and drew their guns. Hernandez approached with a handgun. Fowler joined with a shotgun. Fowler activated his body camera, as did another o cer. Hernandez’s dash camera also recorded the encounter. USCA11 Case: 22-10927 4 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 10 22-10927 The o cers approached while shouting commands that English show and raise his hands. English’s right hand was not visible to the o cers. And English failed to comply with the o cers’ orders. Hernandez warned English that he might be shot if he did not comply. At some point during the approach, the dispatcher communicated that English put the gun into a bag. Fowler testi ed that he did not hear this communication because he was simultaneously shouting commands at English. The bag was on the ground at English’s feet as the o cers approached. Fowler and Hernandez testi ed that shortly after initiating their approach, they saw English make a sudden movement. Fowler testi ed that he saw English make “a hurried movement towards us moving his hand and his right shoulder towards us.” Fowler believed that English had a rearm in his hand or waistband and that “when he made that movement, he was drawing it out to re it.” Hernandez testi ed that he saw English make “a direct steady movement with his right hand towards the right side of his hip.” Both officers fired shots. Fowler fired once and Hernandez fired eight times. English died from his wounds. Officers later recovered a gun from inside the bag. English’s survivors and the administrator of his estate sued Fowler and Hernandez. Their complaint alleged claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and battery and negligence under Georgia law. And it demanded money damages. USCA11 Case: 22-10927 22-10927 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 5 of 10 5 Both officers moved for summary judgment. They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of excessive force. They also argued that they are entitled to official immunity under Georgia law from the claims of battery and negligence. The district court denied the o cers’ motions. It concluded that the o cers were not entitled to quali ed immunity against the claim of excessive force because a reasonable jury could nd that the o cers violated a clearly established constitutional right. The district court also determined that the o cers were not entitled to o cial immunity because a reasonable jury could nd that the of cers lacked any justi cation to re their guns at English. Video footage from the encounter is unclear as to the existence or extent of English’s movement. The o cers testi ed that they saw English make a quick movement as if to reach for a gun, but the district court found that “the videos leave that conclusion up for interpretation.” O cer Fowler also acknowledged that “[t]he poor video quality does not show the suspect’s movement clearly.” II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review de novo whether the o cers are entitled to summary judgment based on immunity. Townsend v. Je erson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 2010) (quali ed immunity); Hoyt v. Cooks, 672 F.3d 972, 981 (11th Cir. 2012) (o cial immunity). We review jurisdictional issues de novo. Cavalieri v. Avior Airlines C.A., 25 F.4th 843, 848 (11th Cir. 2022) USCA11 Case: 22-10927 6 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 6 of 10 22-10927 III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion into two parts. First, we explain that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment based on quali ed immunity. Second, we explain that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment based on statelaw o cial immunity. A. We Lack Jurisdiction to Review the Denial of Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity. “We have a threshold obligation to ensure that we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, for ‘without jurisdiction we cannot proceed at all in any cause.’” Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 965 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2020) (alterations adopted) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1869)). “[A]djudicating an appeal without jurisdiction would ‘o end fundamental principles of separation of powers.’” Id. (alteration adopted) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)). “Whether we have interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment on quali ed immunity grounds depends on the type of issues involved in the appeal.” Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir. 1996) (emphasis omitted). An appeal may raise “legal issues,” such as “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Id. (citation omitted). “[W]e have interlocutory jurisdiction over legal issues that are the basis for a denial of summary judgment on quali ed immunity grounds.” Id.; see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). But an appeal may also raise issues of “evidentiary su ciency.” Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1484. USCA11 Case: 22-10927 22-10927 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 7 of 10 7 Such issues arise when we are asked to determine “whether the district court erred in determining that there was an issue of fact for trial about the defendant’s actions or inactions which, if they occurred, would violate clearly established law.” Id. We lack interlocutory jurisdiction “where the only issues appealed are evidentiary su ciency issues.” Id.; see Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995) (explaining that a district court’s determination that the summary judgment record raised a genuine issue of fact concerning defendants’ actions is not an appealable decision). Some appeals raise questions of both law and fact. When an o cial “moves for summary judgment based on quali ed immunity, a district judge must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the [o cial] committed conduct that violated clearly established law.” Koch v. Ru , 221 F.3d 1283, 1295 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “This decision involves a two-part analysis: (1) de ning the o cial’s conduct, based on the record and viewed most favorably to the non-moving party, and (2) determining whether a reasonable public o cial could have believed that the questioned conduct was lawful under clearly established law.” Id. (footnote omitted). Our precedents “establish[] only that a plainti may not base an interlocutory appeal on the district court’s rst determination by itself.” Id. at 1296 (quoting Mencer v. Hammonds, 134 F.3d 1066, 1070 (11th Cir. 1998)). “When both core quali ed immunity issues are involved, we have jurisdiction for de novo review . . . .” Id.; see also Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (explaining that an appeal is precluded only “if what is at issue in the su ciency determination is nothing USCA11 Case: 22-10927 8 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 8 of 10 22-10927 more than whether the evidence could support a nding that particular conduct occurred”). The only issues in this appeal are issues of evidentiary su ciency. In their motions for summary judgment, the o cers argued that their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances because they encountered a suspect who had brandished a gun, discharged it at least once, and ignored their commands to show his hands. The o cers argued that in the light of these facts, when they saw English move, they had actual and probable cause to use deadly force on him. But the district court determined that “viewing the evidence and the videos in the light most favorable to Plainti s,” a reasonable jury could nd that the o cers’ use of force was unreasonable. It reasoned that “though the o cers say that they saw [English] make a quick motion as if to reach for a gun . . . the videos leave that conclusion up for interpretation.” In other words, the district court ruled against the o cers because of a genuine dispute of material fact. This is the type of ruling that we lack jurisdiction to review. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313. The district court also considered the o cers’ argument that English’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force in these circumstances was not clearly established. The district court explained that deadly force is justi ed only where a reasonable of cer would believe that the suspect “posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm.” The o cers argued, as they do here, that English in fact posed an immediate threat. USCA11 Case: 22-10927 22-10927 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Page: 9 of 10 Opinion of the Court 9 Again, the district court ruled against the o cers because of a genuine dispute of material fact. It determined that “[u]nder Plainti s’ version of the facts, these circumstances did not exist: the video evidence showed that Mr. English was not eeing . . . or resisting . . . [or] threatening the o cers, himself, or anyone else.” In other words, upon reviewing the evidence, “a reasonable jury could view the sequence of events di erently than [the o cers] said they did.” The district court acknowledged that the o cers “contest several of these points” and contend “that they do not accurately depict the scene as they encountered it.” But the dispute is about what the evidence could prove at trial; it is not a dispute about principles of law. To be sure, the o cers try to cast their arguments as legal disputes. But this appeal does not raise questions about whether certain undisputed conduct violated the Fourth Amendment or whether the law was clearly established. The parties agree that the use of deadly force against a non-resisting suspect who poses no danger violates a suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The dispute is whether English—in fact—posed a danger when the shooting occurred. In other words, the only issues in this appeal concern what happened at the scene. Those are questions of fact, not law. B. We Lack Jurisdiction to Review the Denial of Summary Judgment Based on Official Immunity. O cials “may immediately appeal an order denying state of cial . . . immunity, provided that the applicable state law de nes USCA11 Case: 22-10927 10 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 10 of 10 22-10927 the immunity at issue as one from suit instead of from just liability.” Jones v. Fransen, 857 F.3d 843, 849 (11th Cir. 2017). Georgia law de nes its o cial immunity as immunity from suit. Id.; GA. CONST. art. I, § II, ¶ IX(d). Thus, we ordinarily have jurisdiction to review the denial of state-law o cial immunity. See Jones, 857 F.3d at 850. But as in the quali ed immunity context, we lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the denial of summary judgment based on state-law immunity where the appeal turns on issues of evidentiary su ciency. See Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 188 (2011) (explaining that “instant appeal is not available . . . when the district court determines that factual issues genuinely in dispute preclude summary adjudication”). We lack jurisdiction over this denial of o cial immunity. The district court denied summary judgment based on o cial immunity because the evidence “raises a factual question regarding whether Mr. English posed an imminent threat to the o cers and . . . whether the o cers acted with justi cation.” The district court explained that “[t]he evidence could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that [the o cers] lacked any justi cation to re their guns.” In other words, the district court denied summary judgment because of a genuine dispute of material fact. IV. CONCLUSION We DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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.
