FPS&S Prevails on Qualified Immunity and Monell Summary Judgment Arguments: Anderton v. UGWYCO
In 2023, a man in Kansas City, KS was shot and later died of his injuries after an incident with the Kansas City, KS police department. His estate brought a lawsuit against the officer that shot him, the Kansas City, KS police chief, and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, KS. The lawsuit, defended by FPS&S attorneys, Charles Branson & David Cooper, claimed excessive force was used and further claimed that the Unified Government and Chief of Police were liable for failing to supervise and under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The estate also brought a number of state law claims, but voluntarily dismissed them.
Following a report from the decedent of two overdoses, the Kansas City, KS police department dispatched several officers to the scene. One officer encountered the decedent leaving the scene walking with a bicycle. The decedent also had an active warrant.
The officer began to pursue the decedent because of the active warrant. When the officer moved to frisk the fleeing decedent, he dropped the bicycle and fled on foot. The decedent then reached into his jacket pocket and ignored multiple commands to stop reaching. Believing that the decedent was pulling out a handgun, the officer discharged his weapon towards the decedent. After the exchange, a revolver was found beneath the decedent.
FPS&S moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The Court agreed. The decedent’s refusal to comply with orders, close proximity to the officer, intention to prevent the officer from taking him into custody, and his movements consistent with drawing a weapon gave the officer probable cause to believe there was a threat of serious harm. Because the officer did not use excessive force, the Court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the supervisor liability and Monell claims.
This case highlights the importance of the totality of circumstances when evaluating whether a constitutional violation occurred. When an objectively reasonable officer would have believed there was a substantial risk of harm to their life, qualified immunity will often protect the use of deadly force. The case also serves as a reminder that there must be an underlying constitutional violation for supervisory or Monell liability to attach.
A copy of the Court’s full memorandum and order can be found here: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/kansas/ksdce/2:2025cv02016/156022/33/0.pdf