Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Christopher Thomas v. Tracy Pachote

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-4000 · judgment December 18, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 6, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

This petition poses important, but unresolved, questions of federal law regarding whether the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to use force based on the belief that a fellow officer engaged in a physical struggle has acted lawfully. Petitioner Deputy Christopher Thomas observed his partner engaged in a physical struggle with Respondent Tracy Pachote. Thomas had an obscured view of Pachote and mere seconds to decide what to do in a rapidly evolving situation. Lacking information about whether Pachote posed a threat to Nelson, Thomas decided to assist Nelson in subduing Pachote. Although officers assist each other in this fashion innumerable times every day and this issue has incredible practical import, this Court has not issued a decision on point. Nor had the Ninth Circuit prior to this case. Despite the absence of controlling authority, the Ninth Circuit in a split decision denied Thomas qualified immunity. The majority opinion erroneously resolves this question of first impression and in a way that conflicts with this Court’s decisions in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017), and Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100 (2018). Because the majority opinion is “far off the mark” and “dangerous to law enforcement,” Appendix at 8a (Bumatay, J., dissenting), it should not be allowed to stand. The questions presented are: 1. Under the Fourth Amendment, can an officer use force to assist a fellow officer based on the belief the fellow officer was acting lawfully, where the officer has to make a split-second decision with incomplete information?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
David Cameron Baker III
Contra Costa County Counsel's Office

For respondent
Patrick Buelna
Pointer & Buelna, LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Oct 06 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jul 23 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
  3. Jul 16 2025
    Reply of petitioner Christopher Thomas filed.
  4. Jul 03 2025
    Brief of respondent Tracy Pachote in opposition filed.
  5. Jun 03 2025
    Response Requested. (Due July 3, 2025)
  6. Jun 02 2025
    Brief of amici California State Association of Counties, et al. filed.
  7. May 27 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/12/2025.
  8. May 13 2025
    Waiver of right of respondent Tracy Pachote to respond filed.
  9. Apr 28 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 2, 2025)