Gardner v. Board of Police Commissioners, et al., No. 10-2179 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued defendants, including the police officer that shot him, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various state law theories. At issue was whether the district court erred by denying the officer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's section 1983 claim, concluding that the facts established a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the law was clearly established at the time of the shooting. The court concluded that it was not clearly established as of the time of the shooting that an officer in Missouri could effect a seizure under the Fourth Amendment without subjectively intending to do so. Therefore, the district court erred in denying the officer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim without considering the officer's subjective intent. Accordingly, the court vacated the section 1983 claim and remanded for further proceedings regarding the officer's subjective intent.
Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. District court erred in denying defendant officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity without considering his subjective intent at the time he fired his weapon and shot plaintiff; on remand, the district court should determine whether the evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, would support a finding by a reasonable jury that defendant subjectively intended to effect a seizure of plaintiff by firing his weapon; if he did not, then defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and the district court should enter summary judgment for him.
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.