Steven Petersen v. Lewis County

MEMORANDUM

Steven Petersen appeals' the district court’s grant of Lewis County’s (“the County”) and Matthew McKnight’s motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds in Petersen’s. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit arising from the shooting of his son. We have jurisdiction- under 28 ■ U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo the grant of summary judgment. See Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132 , 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court correctly found that there were material factual disputes regarding the reasonableness of McKnight’s actions as to Petersen’s excessive force claim. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Petersen, even if McKnight had reasonable suspicion to stop Petersen’s son under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), McKnight did not have probable cause to use deadly force and therefore acted in violation of clearly established law. See Blanford v. Sacramento Cty., 406 F,3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that, by 2000, reasonable officers would be on notice that using deadly force “required probable cause (supported by…