Fuhr v. City of Seattle

── Fuhr v. City of Seattle ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General FUHR V. CITY OF SEATTLE 1 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASON FUHR, individually, and as No. 24-5618 Executor of estate of Shaun Fuhr; D.C. No. DAVONTA TANIYA FUHR, 2:23-cv-00600- BJR Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. OPINION CITY OF SEATTLE; NOAH ZECH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 19, 2025 Seattle, Washington Filed May 7, 2026 Before: M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge McKeown; Dissent by Judge W. Fletcher 2 FUHR V. CITY OF SEATTLE SUMMARY* Qualified Immunity The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Noah Zech, a Seattle Police Department officer, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Zech used excessive force when he shot and killed Shaun Fuhr, who was fleeing police while holding his infant daughter. Fuhr threatened the mother of his infant daughter, fired his handgun in a public park, and then grabbed his daughter and fled on foot. He dodged authorities for over thirty minutes, and the search grew to encompass a helicopter and Special Weapons and Tactics (“SWAT”) officers, including Zech. Despite warnings to stop, Fuhr continued to evade the officers while holding the child. Eventually, Zech and another SWAT officer encountered Fuhr in a residential alley. As Fuhr appeared from behind a bush and proceeded toward the officers with the baby in his arms, Zech fired, killing Fuhr. The panel agreed with the district court’s dismissal of the excessive force claim on qualified immunity grounds. The panel did not decide whether, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Fuhr, a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. Instead, the panel held only that Zech’s conduct did not violate clearly established law. Fuhr’s continued possession of the baby after firing a gun, fleeing from law enforcement, and ignoring commands to stop are factors that, when combined, distinguish this case from clearly * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  FUHR V. CITY OF SEATTLE 3 established law that sets out a constitutional violation. Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he was entitled to qualified immunity. The panel further held that plaintiffs’ remaining claims failed. Dissenting, Judge W. Fletcher wrote that the undisputed facts make clear that Fuhr was shot in violation of clearly established law where he presented no immediate threat to either the officers or his daughter at the time of the shooting. He was walking slowly, holding his daughter tightly against his chest, and could not have used a firearm to harm the officers even if he had one. Moreover, Fuhr was never warned that deadly force would be used, and the officer who yelled for him to stop testified that he was not given adequate time to comply before being killed. COUNSEL Jesse Valdez (argued), James Bible Jr., and Errin Loyal, James Bible Law Group, Bellevue, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Rebecca S. Widen (argued), Catherine E. Riedo, Carson W. Canonie, and Alexandra Nica, Assistant City Attorneys; Ann Davidson, Seattle City Attorney; Seattle City Attorney's Office, Seattle, Washington; for