Nita Gordon, Personal Representative of the Estate of Antonio Gordon v. Keith Bierenga

Respondent is a Royal Oak, Michigan police officer who killed Antonino1 Gordon, the deceased husband of Petitioner Nita Gordon, when Respondent fired four shots directly into Mr. Gordon’s driver’s side window after a series of minor traffic violations; despite Mr. Gordon’s efforts to avoid arrest by Respondent, he did not pose an imminent risk to either Respondent or the public. Petitioner brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Respondent’s conduct as violative of the Fourth Amendment. The district court concluded that Respondent violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Mr. Gordon because he was not an “imminent or serious danger” to either Respondent or any bystanders. Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and granted Respondent qualified immunity on the grounds that—despite the existence of precedent similar to the facts of the present case—the precedent was not similar enough to clearly establish Respondent’s conduct as unconstitutional under these precise circumstances. The questions presented are: 1. Does qualified immunity protect government officials so long as no prior precedent exists recognizing the unconstitutionality of a fact pattern exactly analogous to the underlying case, as the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have held, or can a constitutional 1 Although the deceased’s name is listed in the caption as “Antonio,” he is correctly called “Antonino.” Out of respect for the deceased, where appropriate this petition will refer to him by his correct name.