Civil Rights-§1983-Excessive Force-Moment-of-Threat Rule
Staff Report//February 18, 2026//
Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff suffered eye injuries and a traumatic brain injury after defendant shot him with a chemical-filled projective from five to ten feet away. Plaintiff filed suit under §1983 alleging excessive force. The district court denied defendant’s summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a grant of qualified immunity. Although the court affirmed the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of the Court’s ruling in Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73.
Where the record would support finding that defendant aimed at plaintiff’s head despite knowing that doing so posed the highest risk of severe or fatal injury and where a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff did not pose an immediate threat to officers because he had been pushed backwards and down to the ground, creating space between plaintiff and the officers, defendant could not demonstrate that a reasonable officer would have believed that plaintiff posed an immediate threat.
Stras, J., dissenting: “With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that Officer Bauer may have made the wrong choice, but no one can identify a single case involving “similar circumstances” that would have provided “fair and clear warning” that his actions “violated [a] Fourth Amendment” right.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Marks v. Bauer (MLW No. 84350/Case No. 23-1420 – 22 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Montgomery, J. (Kristin R. Sarff, Minneapolis, MN for appellant; Heather P. Robertson, Minneapolis, MN and Sharda R. Enslin, Minneapolis, MN on the brief) (Greta Ann Wiessner, Minneapolis, MN for appellant; Robert Bennett, Minneapolis, MN; Andrew J. Noel, Minneapolis, MN; Kathryn H. Bennett, Minneapolis, MN; and Marc E. Betinsky, Minneapolis, MN on the brief)
Legal Tech
- Gemini Legal launches DraftEngine for civil litigation forms
- Lawyers continue to grapple with AI ethical issues
- Are AI prompts privileged? Time will tell
Latest Opinion Digests
- Insurance-Interpleader-Competing Claims to Insurance Proceeds
- Employer-Employee-Discrimination-Hostile Work Environment
- Criminal Law-Rape-Oral and Written Judgments
- Torts-Defamation-Official Immunity
- Real Property-Adverse Possession-Oral Agreement for Sale
- Domestic Relations-Termination of Parental Rights-Parental Unfitness
- Criminal Law-Violation of Order of Protection-Scope of Cross-Examination
Top stories
- Parity Act claim against insurer for child’s treatment survives motion to dismiss
- ABA opinion addresses client restrictions in engagement letters
- U.S. District Court allows plaintiffs to amend complaint alleging fraud
- AAA Insurance faces $21.5M bad faith verdict in Clay County
- Legal Limelight: Meghan S. Largent champions landowners in takings cases
- Supreme Court rejects bright-line rule on FAA worker exemption
- 2026 Unsung Legal Heroes: Publisher’s Letter, honorees
- Driver in accident settles negligence suit with other motorist





