FRESNO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge ruled Monday that most claims in a lawsuit could proceed against a California county and volunteer reserve deputies accused of fatally shooting an unhoused man.
U.S. District Judge Kirk Sherriff ruled that accusations against Fresno County and two deputies over violations of Kenneth Mullins’ Fourth and 14th Amendment rights, as well as state law claims including battery, negligence and wrongful death, survived the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
However, a Monell claim — that a government’s policies or practices led to constitutional violations — was dismissed by the judge.
Mullins’ mother and daughter’s filing of the suit follows the March 2020 shooting death of the 32-year-old as he walked from a Fresno auto dismantling shop.
Mullins’ family argues authorities responded to the shop after learning that a man was asleep inside the business with a shotgun nearby. Deputies used a loudspeaker and robot to reach Mullins, who ultimately left the warehouse and began walking away. Deputies shot him after he turned around and put his hands in the air.
Sherriff, appointed by Joe Biden, first addressed Mullins’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and his 14th Amendment right to familial association.
The judge wrote that he must examine the severity of a crime and whether the suspect posed an immediate threat when determining whether reasonable force was used, as well as if he resisted arrest or tried to flee.
“It was reasonable for the officers to have prepared for a potentially violent encounter with Mullins when they arrived on the scene,” the judge wrote. “However … no officer reports seeing Mullins with a shotgun when he exited the building.”
There’s a large factual dispute for jurors to determine — whether Mullins quickly turned around and moved into a shooting stance or if he turned around and raised his hands as instructed, Sherriff wrote.
It’s also for a jury to decide if the deputies reasonably believed Mullins had a firearm on him at the time, he added.
Sherriff also examined whether Mullins resisted. No physical fight occurred, but instead, Mullins continued to walk away from deputies.
“Despite this passive resistance, the officers used deadly force, the maximum amount of force possible,” the judge wrote. “This factor also weighs in favor of plaintiffs.”
Pivoting to the 14th Amendment claim, Sherriff wrote that the plaintiffs must show the deputies’ actions shock the conscience.
A deputy had his weapon pointed at Mullins for some 20 seconds before he turned around for the first time, and was repeatedly telling him to stop and show his hands. A jury could determine that Mullins was obeying when the deputy shot him, the judge wrote.
That could be a factor for a jury to determine whether the deputy acted with deliberate indifference, he added.
The plaintiffs also brought state law claims against the county and one deputy for battery, negligence, wrongful death and a violation of the Bane Act, the latter of which protects people from interference with their constitutional rights.
The judge ruled all state claims could proceed.
Triable issues exist for the battery and negligence claims, as there are jury questions about whether the use of excessive and deadly force were needed, Sherriff wrote. He added that a jury must also consider if the decision to use deadly force was negligent and if the deputy acted recklessly when firing.
And if a jury finds the deputy who shot Mullins acted recklessly or indifferently, it could also find that punitive damages were warranted, the judge wrote.
The defendants received one silver lining in the ruling — the dismissal of the Monell claim.
Mullins’ family argued that the use-of-force policy at the time didn’t include de-escalation provisions. However, the judge found that the policy did call for deputies to consider the reasonableness of using force, which included considering other options. The policy also addressed using deadly force.
The family also failed to show the county had a longstanding standard operating procedure that would lead to a Monell violation.
“A custom or practice can be ‘supported by evidence of repeated constitutional violations which went uninvestigated and for which the errant municipal officers went unpunished,'” the judge wrote, quoting from Hunter v. County of Sacramento. “But plaintiffs do not set forth any evidence of repeated incidences outside of the one involving Mullins.”
Attorneys for both sides couldn’t be reached for comment via email by publication time.
Read more on Court House News Service
