Whether a municipality or supervisor can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the absence of an underlying constitutional violation by an individual officer

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: Pursuant to Rules 13, 22, and 30 of this Court, Petitioners Piper Partridge and Dominic Schweikle (“Petitioners”) respectfully request that the time to file their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari be extended for thirty (30) days, up to and including March 11, 2026. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a published opinion and entered judgment in Partridge v. City of Benton, No. 24-1780, affirming the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the City of Benton (the “City”) and Chief Kirk Lane (“Chief Lane’’). The appeal arose from the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Keagan Schweikle in October 2016 by Benton police officer Kyle Ellison (“Officer Ellison”), and the ensuing civil action brought by his parents, Piper Partridge and Dominic Schweikle, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Officer Kyle Ellison, Chief Kirk Lane, and the City of Benton, Arkansas (collectively the “Respondents”). This case has an extensive procedural history and has been before the Eighth Circuit on three occasions. This case was initially filed on July 17, 2017. On March 9, 2018, the district court dismissed the action, granting Respondents’ motion for 1 judgment on the pleadings. The Eighth Circuit reversed in part and remanded on July 3, 2019. On remand, the district court granted Respondents’ motion for summary judgment on August 30, 2021, and the Eighth Circuit again reversed and remanded on June 12, 2023. The case then proceeded to trial on January 29, 2024. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Officer Ellison on the excessive force claim, but against the City and Chief Lane on municipal and supervisory liability theories, including failure to train and failure to investigate prior allegations of excessive force. Before the jury returned its verdict, Respondents orally moved for judgment as a matter of law and later renewed that motion after the verdict. On April 9, 2024, the district court granted the renewed motion, vacated the jury’s findings, and entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Respondents. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that municipal and supervisory liability could not attach in the absence of an underlying constitutional violation by an individual officer, and further determined that the jury’s verdicts could not be harmonized because Officer Ellison was the only officer who used deadly force and the jury found that he did not violate the Constitution. The issues by the Eighth Circuit included whether a municipality or supervisor may be held liable under § 1983 in the absence of a constitutional violation by an individual officer and whether any exception applied would permit the jury’s verdicts against the City and Chief Lane to be reconciled with the verdict in favor of Officer Ellison. The court held that controlling precedent foreclosed municipal and supervisory liability without a predicate constitutional violation, and that the facts did not fall within the exception recognized where the combined actions of multiple officials may themselves constitute a constitutional violation. Petitioners intend to seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit’s judgment. However, undersigned counsel for Petitioners is presently engaged in trial, which constrains counsel’s ability to complete the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari within the ordinary filing period. Petitioners therefore respectfully request an extension of time to file their petition. REASONS FOR GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME Applicants respectfully request an extension of time to file their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari because counsel is presently engaged in a jury trial in the matter of R