Jonathan Granado v. Juanita Ramirez, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Estevan Ramirez

Whether Officer Jonathan Granado’s use of deadly force on September 3, 2021 violated the Fourth Amendment when, after a high-speed chase, Estevan Ramirez emerged from the vehicle with gun in hand, refused an order to “get on the ground,” physically resisted an officer’s attempt to arrest, and attempted to escape towards the darkness of a residential neighborhood with gun still in hand. a. Did the panel correctly set forth the elements of an excessive force claim? b. Did the panel invert the qualified immunity analysis by shifting the burden from Ramirez to Officer Granado? c. Does the panel’s approach to qualified immunity force officers “to play roulette with their own existence”?

Whether any court other than the Supreme Court can clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, and if so, whether the panel majority correctly identified the clearly established law applicable to this case.

Whether this Court should resolve the controversies regarding qualified immunity by examining the source of qualified immunity as of 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, and/or, by applying statutory stare decisis to Pierson v. Ray and its progeny.