Whether the Fifth Circuit's narrow standard for evaluating the reasonableness of an officer's use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment impermissibly deviates from the Supreme Court's holistic totality-of-circumstances test articulated in Graham v. Connor

No question identified. : APPLICATION To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit: Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of this Court and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c), Applicant Janice Hughes Barnes, individually and as representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes, respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time, to and including May 22, 2024, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this case. 1. The Fifth Circuit entered judgment on January 23, 2024. See App. 35a. Unless extended, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on April 22, 2024. This application is being filed more than ten days before a petition is currently due. See Sup. Ct. R. 13.5. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2. This case presents a fundamental question of Fourth Amendment law that has divided twelve circuits and is worthy of this Court’s review. At around 2:40pm on April 28, 2016, Ashtian Barnes was driving a rental car on the Sam Houston Tollway, a major beltway outside of Houston, Texas. Through no fault of Barnes, the rental car had outstanding toll violations associated with its license plate. See App. 2a. 3. Respondent Roberto Felix, Jr. (“Officer Felix”) was a traffic enforcement officer for the Harris County Precinct 5 Constable’s Office. Id. at la. Officer Felix spotted the rental car and “initiated a traffic stop by engaging his emergency lights.” Id. at 2a. Barnes “pulled over to the median on the left side of the Tollway out of the immediate traffic zone.” Jd. Felix then parked his car behind Barnes, “approached the driver’s side window and asked Barnes for his driver’s license and proof of insurance.” Id. 4. Barnes told Officer Felix that the documents might be in the trunk. Id. “What happened next was captured on Officer Felix’s dash cam,” id., as detailed by the Fifth Circuit’s opinion below: e “At 2:45:28, Felix orders Barnes to open the trunk of his vehicle. At this time, Barnes’s left blinker is still on, indicating that the keys are still in the ignition.” e “At 2:45:33, Barnes opens the trunk of the vehicle.” e “At 2:45:36, Barnes’s left blinker turns off.” e “At 2:45:48, Felix asks Barnes to get out of the vehicle.” e At 2:45:44, Barnes’s driver side door opens.” e “At 2:45:47, Barnes’s left blinker turns back on.” e “At 2:45:48, Felix draws his weapon.” e “At 2:45:49, Felix points his weapon at Barnes and begins shouting ‘don’t fucking move’ as Barnes’s vehicle begins moving.” Id. at 3a. 5. Felix was still standing by Barnes’s open car door. “At this point, Officer Felix stepped onto the car with his weapon drawn and pointed at Barnes.” Id. (emphasis added). As recounted by the Fifth Circuit, Felix then “ ‘shoved’ his gun into Barnes’s head, pushing his head hard to the right.” Id. The car accelerated. As the car moved, “Officer Felix shot inside the vehicle with ‘no visibility’ as to where he was aiming.” Id. A second later, “Officer Felix fired another shot.” Jd. “After two seconds, the vehicle came to a full stop.” Id. 6. “Officer Felix held Barnes at gunpoint until backup arrived while Barnes sat bleeding in the driver’s seat.” Id. Barnes was pronounced dead at the scene. Id. 7. Applicant Janice Hughes Barnes is Ashtian Barnes’s mother and the representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes. She filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer Felix’s lethal use of force against her son was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. At summary judgment, the District Court held that—under binding Fifth Circuit precedent—Felix’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. 8. This Court has explained that “the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.