Sheila Conatser v. North Las Vegas Police Department

Good Law
445 F. App'x 932
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 201109-17712California624 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Defendants-appellants Peter Smirga and Edmond Finizie, police officers of the City of North Las Vegas Police Department, shot and killed Phillip Conatser outside of his mother’s home after responding to a report from his mother that Conatser was violent, suicidal, and wanted the police to kill him. Conatser’s parents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for, inter alia, violations of their son’s Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to excessive force. Defendants now appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because it turns on fact-related issues.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the district court assumed for summary judgment purposes that Conatser “appeared calm, did not attack the officers, and did not pose a threat to the officers at any time.” The court explained that “Phillip would have been a threat if he charged the officers with the knife, however, [his neighbors] Verona and Cortez testified] Phillip did not attack the officers at any time.” These facts led the district court to reject defendants’ qualified immunity defense:…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.