Civil Rights – Deputy’s appeal from denial of qualified immunity motion is dismissed

Where the district court denied a deputy’s qualified immunity motion because there were genuine issues of material fact concerning his use of force, his interlocutory appeal was dismissed. This court lacks jurisdiction when the district court determines that factual issues genuinely in dispute preclude summary adjudication.

Background

This case arises from the death of Adrian
Roberts, a veteran in severe mental health distress. Tasked with executing an involuntary commitment order, law enforcement officers forcibly entered Roberts’ home. Within seconds, Deputy Justin
Evans shot and killed him.

Roberts’ wife, Sabara Fisher Roberts, sued Evans for Fourth Amendment violations, including the use of excessive force. She alleged that Roberts’ back was turned when Evans shot him. But Evans claimed that Roberts had charged the officers with a machete, requiring him to use deadly force. The district court found disputes of material fact and denied Evans qualified immunity and summary judgment on the excessive force claim.

Analysis

Since this order came to this court on interlocutory appeal, it only has jurisdiction if presented with a “purely legal issue.” Such issues “typically involve contests not about what occurred, or why an action was taken or omitted, but disputes about the substance and clarity of pre-existing law.”

But the court lacks jurisdiction “when the district court determines that factual issues genuinely in dispute preclude summary adjudication.” Here the district court denied Evans qualified immunity because “genuine issues of material fact exist concerning Evans’ use of force.” Most relevant is the autopsy report, which the court found “conflict[ed]” with Evans’ testimony that Roberts charged at him.

As the district court explained, “if a jury found that [Roberts] was unarmed and that Evans shot [Roberts] in the back while [Roberts] receded from the door, a reasonable jury could find that Evans violated [Roberts’] clearly established rights.” This is well-established law in this circuit.

Evans argues that it was reasonable for him to use deadly force because Roberts charged the officers while wielding a machete. But whether Roberts was running toward the officers is precisely the conduct that the district court found was in dispute. Evans asks this court to correct the district court’s view of the evidence. This it cannot do. Because the district court’s order turned on issues of fact, this court does not have jurisdiction and must dismiss.

To escape this result, Roberts argues that this court has jurisdiction because the factual disputes weren’t genuine enough to withstand summary judgment. The court disagrees. While Sabara’s evidence is far from overwhelming, it’s more than pure speculation. The autopsy report is material evidence that could suggest Roberts was retreating when Evans shot him. And that ends this court’s analysis.

Dismissed.

Roberts v. Evans, Case No. 24-2103, Jan. 6, 2026. 4th Cir. (Diaz), from EDNC at Raleigh (Dever III). Reginald Bernard Gillespie Jr. for Appellant. John Joseph Coyle III for Appellee. VLW 026-2-006. 11 pp.