Johnson v. City of Ferguson, No. 16-1697 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants for constitutional violations resulting from an encounter between Officer Wilson and Johnson. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he was seized; that there was a violation of a constitutional right; and, at the time of the incident in this case, that the law was sufficiently clear to inform a reasonable officer that it was unlawful to use deadly force against nonviolent, suspected misdemeanants who were not fleeing or resisting arrest, posed little or no threat to the officer or public, did not receive verbal commands to stop, and whose only action was to stop walking when a police car blocked their path. Therefore, a reasonable officer in Officer Wilson's position would not have shot his gun and the district court correctly denied qualified immunity to Officer Wilson. Furthermore, the district court did not err by denying Chief Jackson qualified immunity and the court did not have jurisdiction to review the City's liability. The court dismissed the rest of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In this action arising out of the incident which led to the shooting death of Michael Brown and the shooting of his companion Dorian Johnson in Ferguson, Missouri, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; plaintiff's complaint alleges that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson used his police car to block Brown and plaintiff and yelled at them to "Get the F--- on the sidewalk;" these allegations are sufficient to constitute a show of authority for Fourth Amendment purposes and a seizure; further, based on the facts alleged in the complaint plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Wilson violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force; at the time of the incident, the law was sufficiently clear to inform a reasonable officer that it was unlawful to use deadly force against nonviolent, suspected misdemeanants who were not fleeing or resisting arrest, posed little or no threat to the officer or the public, did not receive commands to stop and whose only action was to stop walking when the officer's squad car blocked their path; plaintiff has sufficiently alleged supervisory liability by alleging the Chief of Police had notice of unconstitutional acts by his officers and failed to review offense reports and hold officers responsible for excessive force; the City's appeal on municipal liability is dismissed as it not inextricable intertwined with the police officer's and Police Chief's appeal. Judge Wollman, dissenting on the issue of whether Johnson was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 17, 2019.
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.