Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Matthew Farney, et al. v. Michael Rose, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Bradley Rose and on Behalf of all Statutory Beneficiaries of Bradley Rose, Deceased
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-2846 · judgment March 12, 2025
Certiorari denied · December 15, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
- This Court has never applied the obvious case exception to qualified immunity’s second prong in the Fourth Amendment context. Although the Court has recognized its potential application, it has repeatedly cautioned against its use on an excessive force claim. Despite this, the Ninth Circuit applied the obvious case exception to reverse the grant of summary judgment in Deputy Matthew Farney’s favor on Respondent’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Did the Ninth Circuit err in defining the qualified immunity right at issue too broadly by holding this was an “obvious” case? 2a. The Ninth Circuit holds that when there is only a single surviving officer witness to a deadly force encounter, it “must also look at the circumstantial evidence that, if believed, would tend to discredit the police officer’s story, and consider whether this evidence could convince a rational factfinder that the officer acted unreasonably.” Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994). Did the Ninth Circuit err in requiring a higher degree of scrutiny for a defendant officer’s unopposed sworn testimony at summary judgment when he is the only surviving witness to a deadly force encounter despite the defendant officer not having the burden of proof at trial? 2b. Even assuming a higher degree of scrutiny is appropriate, did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that purported discrepancies in an officer’s testimony created an issue of material fact sufficient to disregard the officer’s sworn testimony on why force was necessary even though those discrepancies did not address the officer’s decision to use deadly force? (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Justin Michael Ackerman
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C.
For respondent
Charles Anthony Piccuta
Scottsdale Injury Lawyers, LLC
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Dec 15 2025Petition DENIED.
- Nov 25 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025.
- Nov 18 2025Reply of petitioners Matthew Farney, et al. filed.
- Nov 05 2025Brief of respondent Michael Rose in opposition filed.
- Oct 02 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 10, 2025.
- Sep 30 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 10, 2025 to November 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 10 2025Response Requested. (Due October 10, 2025)
- Aug 27 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
- Aug 19 2025Waiver of right of respondent Michael Rose, as personal representative for the estate of Bradley Rose and as personal representative on behalf of all statutory beneficiaries of Bradley Rose, deceased estate of Bradley Rose to respond filed.
- Jul 17 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 20, 2025)