Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 6, 2022, Gulfport Police received a 911 call reporting a silver Kia Soul with occupants brandishing firearms and following the caller’s vehicle through red lights. Officers Kenneth Nassar and Benjamin Ford located a matching vehicle in a Family Dollar parking lot. When the officers activated their lights, two males exited the Kia and ran along the front of the store, including fifteen-year-old Jaheim McMillan.
Officer Nassar ordered McMillan to stop, but McMillan continued running toward the store entrance. Nassar saw a dark object in McMillan’s right hand, identified it as a black handgun, and ordered him to drop it. McMillan did not comply and turned to face Officer Nassar. Officer Nassar then fired. The gun recovered was a stolen Taurus 9mm handgun loaded with eight live rounds. The parties disputed whether McMillan pointed the gun at the officer, but video evidence showed he was holding it and had turned to face Nassar.
Katrina Danielle Mateen, McMillan’s mother proceeding pro se, sued the City of Gulfport and Officer Nassar under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the City, granted Officer Nassar qualified immunity on summary judgment, and remanded state-law claims. Mateen appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. The court applied the two-prong qualified immunity test: whether the officer’s conduct violated a federal right, and whether that right was clearly established at the time. The court did not decide whether the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment, instead focusing on whether a clearly established right existed.
The court found that even accepting Mateen’s factual disputes—that McMillan did not point the gun at Officer Nassar and was evading rather than attacking—Mateen failed to establish a violation of clearly established law. While Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner prohibit deadly force unless an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat, the Supreme Court has stressed that these cases alone do not create clearly established law “outside an obvious case.”
The Fifth Circuit distinguished Cole v. Carson, the plaintiff’s primary supporting authority, which involved officers shooting a suicidal teenager who had not threatened others and was not fleeing through a public area with a gun. The court concluded that the totality of circumstances here—police responding to reports of armed individuals, a suspect fleeing from police, ignoring commands to stop, holding a firearm, and turning to face the officer outside an occupied store—did not constitute an obvious violation under clearly established law. The weight of Fifth Circuit authority supported the officer’s position.
Key Takeaways
- Qualified immunity requires that a right be clearly established with sufficient specificity that a reasonable officer would understand their conduct violates it—Garner and Graham alone are insufficient outside “obvious” cases
- Courts need not resolve disputed facts about whether force violated the Fourth Amendment if the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of clearly established law
- An armed suspect who ignores police commands and turns to face an officer outside an occupied store presents circumstances distinguishable from cases involving disarmed or non-threatening suspects
- Factual disputes about whether a suspect actually pointed a gun do not necessarily establish a clearly established right violation when the suspect was armed and non-compliant
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity in police shooting cases, requiring plaintiffs to identify precedent with sufficient factual specificity to place an officer on clear notice that their conduct violated the Constitution. The ruling highlights how courts continue to parse the Garner/Graham framework narrowly, limiting its expansion beyond “obvious” violations. For law enforcement, this affirms that armed, non-compliant suspects present circumstances where officers retain qualified immunity protections even when facts regarding the suspect’s intent are disputed.
The case also illustrates the procedural dimensions of qualified immunity litigation: the court noted it would reach the same result even considering the plaintiff’s late summary judgment response, and it emphasized that the legal question—not factual disputes about gun-pointing—was dispositive. This procedural posture may have implications for pro se litigants navigating federal civil rights claims, as strict procedural compliance requirements can interact with substantive immunity doctrines.