Hart v. City of Redwood City, No. 22-17008 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves a lawsuit filed by the family of Kyle Hart against the City of Redwood City and its police officers, following Hart's death in a police shooting. Hart, who was attempting suicide with a knife in his backyard, was shot by Officer Gomez when he approached the officers with the knife despite commands to drop it. The family alleged constitutional and state law violations arising from the shooting.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Officer Gomez's claim of qualified immunity at summary judgment. The court found that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, relying on a previous court decision that stated it was objectively unreasonable to shoot an unarmed man who had committed no serious offense, was mentally or emotionally disturbed, had been given no warning of the imminent use of such a significant degree of force, posed no risk of flight, and presented no objectively reasonable threat to the safety of the officer or other individuals.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer Gomez was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Hart posed an immediate threat when he rapidly approached the officers brandishing a knife and refusing commands to drop it. Furthermore, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. None of the cases the plaintiffs identified would have put Officer Gomez on notice that his actions in this case would be unlawful.
Court Description: Deadly Force/Qualified Immunity. The panel reversed the district court’s denial, on summary judgment, of qualified immunity to City of Redwood City Police Officer Gomez in an action alleging constitutional and state law violations arising from the deadly shooting of Kyle Hart.
Officers Gomez and Velez responded to a call involving a man attempting suicide with a knife in his backyard. When they arrived, they found the man’s wife covered in blood and frantically pleading for help. At her urging, the officers went to the backyard, where they found Hart holding a knife. They told him to drop the knife, but instead of doing so he began moving towards them with the knife raised. As Hart neared the officers, Officer Velez deployed her taser, but it was ineffective. With Hart approaching closely and wielding a knife, Officer Gomez shot and killed him.
As an initial matter, the panel held that it had jurisdiction because both whether the disputed facts were material and whether qualified immunity applied were questions of law subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
The panel held that Officer Gomez was entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs failed to show that Officer Gomez’s conduct was objectively unreasonable and therefore a violation of Hart’s Fourth Amendment rights. Hart posed an immediate threat when he rapidly approached the officers brandishing a knife and refusing commands to drop it. Moreover, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. None of the cases plaintiffs identified would have put Officer Gomez on notice that his actions in this case would be unlawful.
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.