NITA GORDON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTONIO GORDON v. KEITH BIERENGA - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Karen Belcher on Dec 14, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kali M. L. Henderson, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Kenneth D. Finegood, KENNETH D. FINEGOOD, P.L.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Kali M. L. Henderson, T. Joseph Seward, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Kenneth D. Finegood, KENNETH D. FINEGOOD, P.L.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of the fatal police shooting of Antonino Gordon in a drive-thru line as Gordon attempted to flee from Defendant Police Officer Keith Bierenga. Gordon’s estate brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bierenga alleging excessive use of force. Bierenga moved for summary judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity. The district court denied qualified immunity at summary judgment, holding that Bierenga violated Gordon’s Fourth Amendment rights when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the estate, and that the violation was “clearly established” by our decision in Latits v. Phillips, 878 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2017). While Latits is similar in some ways, we do not think Latits is similar enough to the facts of this case to pass muster under the controlling standards for defining “clearly established” law. Because the estate is unable to point to a case that would place every reasonable officer in Bierenga’s position on notice that his use of force in this specific situation was unlawful, we must reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Attachments: