ESTATE OF GABRIEL STRICKLAND, ET AL V. NEVADA COUNTY, ET AL, No. 22-15761 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The Estate of a man who was shot and killed by police brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law alleging that police officers used excessive force. The Estate claimed that the decedent was known to the officers to be homeless and mentally ill. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that the man posed an immediate threat. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to the man, he was carrying a replica gun, disregarded multiple warnings to drop it, and pointed it at the officers. While the misidentification of the replica gun added to the tragedy of this situation, it did not render the officers’ use of force objectively unreasonable. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Estate leave to amend the complaint. The complaint established that the man pointed the replica gun’s barrel at the officers, so it was objectively reasonable for the officers to respond with lethal force. Under these pleaded facts, it would be futile to allow leave to amend.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging that police officers used excessive force when they shot and killed Gabriel Strickland, who was known to the officers to be homeless and mentally ill, after he pointed a black toy airsoft rifle in their direction.
The panel held that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that Strickland posed an immediate threat. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Strickland, he was carrying a replica gun, disregarded * The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
multiple warnings to drop it, and pointed it at the officers. While the misidentification of the replica gun added to the tragedy of this situation, it did not render the officers’ use of force objectively unreasonable.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Strickland’s estate leave to amend the complaint. The complaint established that Strickland pointed the replica gun’s barrel at the officers and so it was objectively reasonable for the officers to respond with lethal force. Under these pleaded facts, it would be futile to allow leave to amend.
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.