The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2612
___________________________
Karen Wells, as co-trustees for the next of kin of Amir Rahkare Locke, deceased;
Andre Locke, as co-trustees for the next of kin of Amir Rahkare Locke, deceased,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
Mark Hanneman, in his individual capacity as a Minneapolis police officer; City
of Minneapolis,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants.
------------------------------
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association,
lllllllllllllllllllllAmicus on Behalf of Appellant(s).
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 18, 2025
Filed: July 18, 2025
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ERICKSON and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
COLLOTON, Chief Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court denying a
police officer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity.
We conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction, and therefore dismiss the appeal.
I.
The case arises from a police shooting during execution of a no-knock search
warrant on an early morning in February 2022. A SWAT team from Minneapolis
entered an apartment in search of a murder suspect. When officers entered, they
found Amir Locke, the suspect’s cousin, asleep on a living room couch. Given the
posture of the case, we recite the facts as set forth in the pleadings.
Locke was lying on a couch that was “straight ahead after entering the door to
the apartment.” About six seconds after the SWAT team entered the apartment,
Sergeant Carlson kicked the couch as another officer yelled, “Get on the ground.”
Locke, draped in a blanket, fell off the couch and onto the ground. As he began to
stand, Locke grabbed for a handgun that was placed near the couch. Officer
Hanneman approached Locke and yelled, “Show me your hands.”
Locke began to comply by lowering the handgun’s barrel to the ground and
raising his left hand to the side of his head. Before Locke could fully comply, Officer
Hanneman fired three shots that hit Locke. Hanneman then announced, “He’s got a
gun.” During the encounter, Locke allegedly kept his finger off the trigger, pointed
the handgun toward the ground, and “never raised the handgun in a threatening
manner in the direction of any officer or other person.” The shooting occurred eight
seconds after the SWAT team entered the apartment. Locke died within fifteen
minutes of the shooting.
-2-
Karen Wells and Andre Locke, co-trustees of Locke’s next of kin, brought this
action against Officer Hanneman and the City of Minneapolis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and Minnesota’s wrongful death statute. The plaintiffs alleged that Hanneman
violated Locke’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.
They also alleged that the City failed adequately to train its officers and failed “to
correct a number of persistent and widespread unconstitutional practices and
customs” that led to Locke’s death. Finally, they alleged that Officer Hanneman and
the City violated Minnesota’s wrongful death statute by engaging in wrongful acts
and omissions that caused Locke’s death.
Hanneman and the City answered the complaint and submitted body camera
footage from the officers. Hanneman moved for judgment on the pleadings on the
ground that he was entitled to qualified immunity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
Hanneman argued that the amended complaint and body camera footage establish that
he “had probable cause to believe that Locke posed a threat of death or serious
physical harm to himself or other officers.” The officer cited body camera footage
for the proposition that “Locke raised the gun and pointed the gun in Hanneman’s
direction and near the direction of other police officers in the apartment.”
The district court denied the motion. The court concluded that the body camera
footage did not contradict the factual allegations in the complaint. Specifically, the
court observed that “the body-worn-camera videos provide dim, unclear images of the
incident’s critical moments.” After a “careful review of the videos,” the court
determined that Locke’s actions were “obscured by darkness or the officers
themselves.”
Based on the uncontradicted allegations in the complaint, the court assumed
that Locke lowered the barrel and muzzle of his firearm toward the ground, began
raising his left hand toward his head, attempted to comply with officers’ commands,
and never raised the gun in a threatening manner in the direction of any officer. On
-3-
those assumed facts, the court concluded that the complaint plausibly stated a claim
that Hanneman’s use of deadly force violated Locke’s clearly established rights. The
court also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining claims.
Hanneman and the City noticed an appeal, and the plaintiffs moved to dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs argue that the appeal challenges the
facts assumed by the district court and does not raise a purely legal issue over which
this court has jurisdiction.
II.
In an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction “to
decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a
violation of clearly established law.” Raines v. Counseling Assocs., Inc., 883 F.3d
1071, 1074 (8th Cir. 2018). In making that determination, the court is “constrained
by the version of the facts that the district court assumed or likely assumed in
reaching its decision.” Thompson v. Murray, 800 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2015). We
ordinarily lack jurisdiction to decide “which facts a party may, or may not, be able to
prove at trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). “There is one exception
to such a jurisdictional limitation on our review: we may reject the district court’s
factual findings to the extent that they are ‘blatantly contradicted by the record.’”
Wallace v. City of Alexander, 843 F.3d 763, 767 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Walton v.
Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1116 (8th Cir. 2014)); see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380
(2007).
The defendants’ principal argument on appeal is that the body camera footage
blatantly contradicts the district court’s assumed fact that Locke did not raise the gun
in the direction of the officers. The defendants claim that the footage clearly depicts
Locke raising and pointing the gun in the direction of Officer Hanneman or other
officers.
-4-
After reviewing the body camera footage, we conclude that the videos do not
blatantly contradict the assumed fact that Locke did not raise the gun in the direction
of officers. We agree with the district court that Locke’s actions “are obscured by
darkness or the officers themselves,” and that “the body-worn-camera videos provide
dim, unclear images of the incident’s critical moments.”
The defendants assert that a still-image taken from Officer Carlson’s body
camera footage shows Locke pointing the gun at officers. The image shows the barrel
of a gun appearing from under Locke’s blanket, with the barrel angled close to
horizontal. Officer Hanneman is located to the right of Locke, near the corner of the
couch. But the image does not show definitively what direction the barrel is pointing
or whether officers are located in the direction of the barrel.
Because the district court’s assumed facts are not blatantly contradicted by the
record, this court does not have jurisdiction to address Hanneman’s remaining
arguments on appeal. Each of the arguments would require the court to reject the
plaintiffs’ alleged facts and agree with Hanneman that Locke raised his gun in the
direction of officers. Because we lack jurisdiction to address whether the evidence
is sufficient to support the allegations in the complaint, the appeal must be dismissed.
See Evans v. Krook, 106 F.4th 790, 792 (8th Cir. 2024) (per curiam).
The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, as amicus curiae, argues
that even if the videos do not establish that Locke pointed the gun in the direction of
the officers, Officer Hanneman was still entitled to qualified immunity. But the
defendants did not raise this argument in the district court or on appeal. We therefore
decline to consider it. See FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 568 U.S. 216, 226
n.4 (2013); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050, 1053 n.1 (8th Cir. 2013).
Because we lack jurisdiction to consider Hanneman’s claim for qualified immunity,
we also do not consider the City’s interlocutory appeal on the claims alleging
-5-
municipal liability or the defendants’ interlocutory appeal concerning the state-law
claim. See Shockency v. Ramsey County, 493 F.3d 941, 952 (8th Cir. 2007).
The appeal is dismissed.
______________________________
-6-