Partridge v. City of Benton, No. 18-1803 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
After a police officer shot and killed 17 year old Keagan Schweikle, his parents and others filed suit against the officer, the Chief of Police, and the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Arkansas law. The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers and judgment on the pleadings.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that, in light of the circumstances, the officer's actions were not objectively reasonable and Keagan's right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time. In this case, the officer shot a non-resisting, non-fleeing minor as he moved his gun in compliance with the officer's commands to drop his gun. Therefore, no reasonable officer could conclude that Keagan posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal of the Monell claims and vacated the dismissal of the state law claims. Finally, the court held that the parents failed to allege a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment to a familial relationship, where they failed to allege that the shooting was directed at their relationship with their son.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. Taking as true the facts alleged in the complaint, no reasonable police officer could conclude that plaintiffs' child posed an immediate threat when he began to move his firearm in compliance with the officers' directives; as such, the court cannot conclude that the officers' decision to shoot and kill the child was objectively reasonable; the child's right to be free of excessive force under the circumstances was clearly established, and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' excessive-force claim; as the court has reversed the grant of summary judgment on the excessive force claim against its officers, the City's judgment on the Monell claims is also reversed; defendants' summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim that the unjustified shooting violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to a family relationship was proper as plaintiffs failed to allege that the shooting was directed at their relationship with their son, a necessary element of such a claim.
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.