MARQUETTA WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of James Williams, Deceased v. CITY OF CANTON, OHIO, et al., - Articles

All Content

MARQUETTA WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of James Williams, Deceased v. CITY OF CANTON, OHIO, et al.,

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 6, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Gregory A. Beck, BAKER | DUBLIKAR, North Canton, Ohio, for Appellant. Justin J. Hawal, DICELLO LEVITT LLP, Mentor, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Gregory A. Beck, Mel L. Lute, Jr., Andrea K. Ziarko, BAKER | DUBLIKAR, North Canton, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Justin J. Hawal, Robert F. DiCello, Kennth P. Abbarno, DICELLO LEVITT LLP, Mentor, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): READLER, MURPHY, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Since the Founding, some Americans have celebrated New Year’s Day by dangerously shooting firearms into the air. We must decide whether a police officer violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law when the officer used deadly force to stop this gunfire. At midnight on New Year’s Day in Canton, Ohio, James Williams fired dozens of shots into the air from a patio enclosed by a wooden privacy fence. Officer Robert Huber drove to the scene to investigate. Soon after Huber arrived, Williams began a second volley of this celebratory gunfire. Without giving a warning, Huber fatally shot Williams through the fence. When Williams’s wife sued, Huber asserted a qualified-immunity defense. But this case’s key factual dispute belongs to a jury. On the one hand, Huber testified that he shot at Williams because he saw Williams turning the rifle toward him and feared for his life. Under this view of the facts, Huber would have complied with the Fourth Amendment because he had probable cause to believe that Williams posed a serious risk of harm. On the other hand, video evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find that Huber saw Williams keep firing into the air the entire time. Under this view of the facts, Huber would have violated the Fourth Amendment because he lacked probable cause to believe that Williams posed a threat. And any reasonable officer would have recognized that the police may not (without warning) shoot a man when the only information they have about his “threat” status is that he was committing what Canton treats as a misdemeanor: discharging a gun into the air just after midnight to celebrate New Year’s Day. The district court thus properly denied summary judgment to Huber. We affirm.

Attachments: