Whether a court's obligation to view evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff allows ignoring undisputed clear video evidence that would require an inference of non-excessive force and non-clearly established unlawfulness in a qualified immunity summary judgment motion

After the Los Angeles Police Department responded to multiple 911 calls of an “ active shooter, ” the officers heard screaming, observed blood on the floor, and saw a female victim bleeding profusely from the head, crawling on the floor, and attempting to escape her assailant, Daniel Elena-Lopez. As Officer William Jones (Petitioner) approached Elena-Lopez, he saw a dark object in ElenaLopez’s hand and saw it moving. Believing Elena-Lopez was armed with a gun as previously reported, Officer Jones fired three shots in rapid succession, one of which fatally wounded Elena-Lopez. Despite the presence of clear video evidence which established these facts, the Ninth Circuit denied summary judgment, thereby presenting the following issue: In ruling on a claim for qualified immunity raised in a motion for summary judgment, does a court’s obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff allow that court to ignore undisputed clear video evidence which, if considered, would require the court to draw the inference that the force used by the defendants was not excessive, and the further inference that the unlawfulness of the defendants’ conduct was not clearly established? ii PARTIES Petitioner William Jones, Jr., is a member of the Los Angeles Police Department. Petitioner was a defendant in the District Court and an appellant in the Ninth Circuit appeal from which this petition is taken. Respondents Ymelda Elena, Mario Elena, and I.J., a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Cervantes, are the Successors in Interest to Decedent Daniel Elena-Lopez, and were the plaintiffs in the District Court and the appellees in the Ninth Circuit.