Birkeland v. Jorgenson, No. 19-2086 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After Officers Jorgensen and Eckert shot and killed John O. Birkeland in his home, plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the officers as well as the sergeant and the city. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers and the city on all claims except the use of deadly force and "associated state-law claims."
The Eighth Circuit granted the motion to dismiss the cross-appeal because the court lacked jurisdiction to review the grant of qualified immunity or the grant of official immunity under Minnesota state law. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the deadly force claim. In this case, regardless of whether Birkeland's movement toward the officers was voluntary, in light of the close proximity between the officers and Birkeland's location in the closet, Birkeland's failure to comply with Jorgensen's commands to drop the knife, and Birkeland's stabbing of the police dog in the face with a knife, Birkeland posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officers and the court cannot say that their use of deadly force, even if just over the line of reasonableness, violated a clearly established right.
The court also reversed the district court's denial of official immunity on the state-law claims related to the use of deadly force where a reasonable fact finder could not conclude that the officers' conduct in this case was willful or malicious. Furthermore, because the officers' discretionary decisions are entitled to official immunity, the city is entitled to vicarious official immunity.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Wrongful death. The police officers did not violate plaintiff's deceased's clearly established constitutional rights when they shot and killed him as Eighth Circuit precedent compels the conclusion that the use of deadly force in this situation was not a violation of clearly established right; given the close proximity of the deceased, his refusal to obey the officers' commands to drop a knife and his act of stabbing a police dog in the face showed he posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officers; the district court erred, therefore, in denying the officers' motion for qualified immunity on plaintiff's wrongful death claim; under these facts there was no genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide, and the officers were entitled to official immunity as a matter of Minnesota state law; because the officers' discretionary decisions are entitled to official immunity, the City of Roseville has no vicarious liability. The court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction plaintiff's cross-appeal challenging the district court's order granting the officers and the City summary judgment on plaintiff's other claims. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.