Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 11-16401 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against police officers and the city after the officers entered her home without a warrant and shot her five or six times when she reacted violently to the officers' presence, grabbing a knife and threatening to kill the officers. Plaintiff, a woman in her mid-50s suffering from a mental illness, told the officers that she did not want to be taken to a mental health facility. The court affirmed in part, holding that the officers were justified in entering plaintiff's home initially under the emergency aid exception because they had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that she was in need of emergency medical assistance and they conducted the search or seizure in a reasonable manner up to that point. The court held that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the second entry violated the Fourth Amendment where a jury could find that the officers acted unreasonably by forcing the second entry and provoking a near-fatal confrontation. The court further held that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the officers used excessive force by resorting to deadly force and shooting plaintiff. Finally, the court held that the district court properly rejected claims of municipal liability; the court joined the majority of circuits that have addressed the issue and held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, applied to arrests; on the facts presented here, there was a triable issue as to whether the officers failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's disability; and the court vacated summary judgment on plaintiff's state law claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law, alleging that police officers violated plaintiff’s rights when they entered her residence without a warrant and shot her after she threatened them with a knife. The panel held that the officers were justified in entering plaintiff’s home initially under the emergency aid exception because they had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that plaintiff was in need of emergency medical assistance and they conducted the search or seizure in a reasonable manner up to that point. The panel also held that the district court properly rejected plaintiff’s claims of municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The panel held that a jury could find that the officers acted unreasonably by forcing a second entry into plaintiff’s residence and provoking a near-fatal confrontation. The panel held that plaintiff presented a triable issue of the unreasonable use of deadly force under a provocation theory. See Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1189 (9th Cir. 2002). The panel held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to arrests and on the facts presented in this case, there was a triable issue whether the officers failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability when they forced their way back into her room without taking her mental illness into account or employing generally accepted police practices for peaceably resolving a confrontation with a person with mental illness. Finally, the panel vacated summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims and remanded for further proceedings. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Graber stated that although she agreed with the remainder of the opinion, she dissented from the majority’s decision on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim with respect to the second entry into plaintiff’s apartment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 14, 2015.
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.