SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(US)(ca8) 1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Amity Dimock – Appellant
Versus
City of Brooklyn Center – Respondent



No. 24-1728 ___________________________

Amity Dimock, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Kobe Dimock-Heisler

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. City of Brooklyn Center; Brandon Akers, in their individual and official capacities; Steve Holt, in their individual and official capacities; Cody Turner, in their individual and official capacities; Joseph Vu, in their individual and official capacities

Defendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: October 23, 2024 Filed: December 26, 2024 ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Amity Dimock—the mother of Kobe E. Dimock-Heisler—sued the City of Brooklyn Center and four officers in their individual and official capacities, alleging unconstitutional warrantless entry and unconstitutional use of deadly force. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to the officers based on qualified immunity. Dimock appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

On summary judgment, this court views the evidence and draws all reasonable inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party. Rusness v. Becker Cnty., 31 F.4th 606, 614 (8th Cir. 2022). However, only facts that are genuinely disputed are viewed most favorably to the nonmovant. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). A fact is not genuinely disputed if a party’s story is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Here, due to footage of the encounter from the officers’ body cameras, there are few disputed facts. For the defense of qualified immunity, the only facts considered are those “that were knowable to the defendant officers.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 77 (2017).

On August 31, 2019, Erwin B. Heisler called 911, saying that his grandson had threatened him with a knife and hammer. After answering questions for about one minute, Heisler hung up, saying “Oh, forget it.” From dispatch, officers learned that a 21-year-old man was fighting with his grandfather, that he had a hammer and a knife, and that Heisler called 911, said “Oh, forget it,” and hung up. Several officers arrived at Heisler’s house. Four officers—Brandon Akers, Cody Turner, Steve Holt, and Joseph Vu—approached the front door. Walking there, Officer Turner told Officer Akers that Kobe had stabbed himself earlier that year.

Opening the front door, Heisler stepped onto the front steps to meet the officers. Officer Akers greeted him and asked, “What’s going on tonight?” Obviously referring to Kobe, Heisler told the officers, “He’s going to be okay.”

1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Officer Akers, a few feet from the front step, asked Heisler who was in the house. Heisler replied, his wife (Kobe’s grandmother), himself, and Kobe. Officer Akers said, “Ok. We gotta make sure that everybody’s okay before we leave. I get families have disturbances and stuff like that.” Peering through a window, Officer Turner pinpointed Kobe sitting in the front room. Heisler said “ok,” turned, and reentered his home. Officer Akers asked Heisler if Kobe had any weapons on him. Heisler responded, “No.” From inside the entryway, Heisler told his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top