Defense motions for summary judgement in lawsuit over 2020 Pocatello officer-involved shooting

POCATELLO — Attorneys for the City of Pocatello and four Pocatello police officers named as defendants in a lawsuit have requested a summary judgment in the defendants’ favor.

In a motion filed Jan. 31, attorneys for the defendants — the City, Police Chief Roger Schei and officers Bridget McArthur, Jeffrey Eldridge and Marisa Saldana — claim attorneys for the plaintiff — Jake Lee Sheeler — have provided no evidence proving his claims.

Sheeler’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, the motion states. The City of Pocatello was not “deliberately indifferent” to Sheeler’s rights, nor was the City or Schei negligent in their training and supervision of the involved officers, it continues.

As for McArthur, Eldrige and Saldana — the officers directly involved in the shooting — the motion claims they are protected by their rights as law enforcement officers.

“No clearly established law put the defendant officers on notice that their actions were unlawful and therefore, the court must grant qualified immunity to the officers,” the motions reads.

“…Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant summary judgment in their favor, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety,” the motion summarizes.

RELATED | Pocatello man paralyzed in officer-involved shooting files lawsuit

A lawsuit requesting more than $13 million in damages was filed on Sheeler’s behalf in July 2022. Sheeler was hospitalized after being shot five times by McArthur, Eldrige and Saldana, who were involved in a search for Sheeler following a burglary in which he took a handgun from a home on Hyde Avenue in Pocatello.

The lawsuit alleges the officers fired a combined 15 shots in three seconds — hitting Sheeler in the neck, thigh, underarm and twice in the back.

Officers from the Pocatello Police Department were assisted in their search for Sheeler, who has since pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, burglary and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

RELATED | Police shoot burglary suspect in Pocatello

Sheeler’s family claimed shortly after the incident that police reports of the incident were false, noting Sheeler had been shot in the back. However, an investigation by the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office and the East Idaho Critical Incident Task Force determined the shooting “justified.”

The motion lays out the events leading up to the shooting.

Officers responded to reports of a burglary around 4:15 p.m. on Sept. 25. Upon arrival, officers were informed a man, later identified as Sheeler, was found inside a home’s detached garage. When the owner of the home discovered him, Sheeler allegedly pointed a gun taken from the home at the victim.

The victim told officers Sheeler said, “Sir, I don’t want to shoot you but I will.”

During a deposition for the lawsuit, Sheeler admitted to making that comment — or something along those lines.

After “five to 10 minutes” — throughout which Sheeler kept the pistol aimed at the victim — Sheeler ran away. The victim called out for his neighbors to call 911 while he pursued Sheeler.

One of the victim’s neighbors helped the victim search for Sheeler and, while searching the area, came “face to face” with Sheeler, who pointed the gun at him. The motion says he told the second victim, “Don’t” before jumping a fence and running away.

Officers found Sheeler walking along the perimeter of the driving range at Outback Golf Park around 8 p.m.

Sheeler was shot when he did not follow commands given by the officers.

The lawsuit claims that contradicting directions were given by the officers — meaning Sheeler would have been seen as not following instructions no matter how he reacted.

According to the lawsuit, one officer yelled out “Don’t move,” while another commanded, “Get on the ground.”

The officers reported that Sheeler, keeping his right hand behind his back, “squared up” on Eldridge before charging toward the officer. However, an expert for the defense proved that claim to be untrue, according to a response to the motion for summary judgment.

That expert provided a line of travel taken by Sheeler and that line, the response says, was not toward Eldridge.

Within two minutes of the shooting, officers were providing first aid to Sheeler. A gun was never recovered at the scene. The Taurus Judge gun Sheeler had following the burglary was found the following morning — court documents do not indicate where the gun was found.

The lawsuit contends the officers had information from witnesses saying Sheeler was unarmed. The defense, though, claims the officers were not aware of that.

“(Sheeler) was on the run from the police at the time that he was shot,” the motion says. “Plaintiff was a danger to other people around him, to the officers and to himself.”

Furthermore, the motion adds, that when officers interacted with Sheeler near the driving range, he said “‘I’ve gotta gun’ loudly enough for Officers McArthur and Eldridge to hear,” according to the motion.

In its motion, the defense laid out the officers’ justification for using potentially deadly force. Among those claims is:

“An officer may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from what he/she
reasonably believes would be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.”

In his deposition, Sheeler claimed: he did not tell the officers he was armed; he did not hear officers tell him they would shoot if he pulled a gun; he he did not see any officers, or their flashlights — though he did say he heard commands from the officers.

In their response to the motion, Sheeler’s attorneys make numerous assertions supporting their claims Sheeler was shot unjustly.

First, Sheeler only pointed the gun at the first victim after that victim “moved to assault” Sheeler. The victim, the response says, described Sheeler as “polite” in statements to police.

Sheeler, the response adds, while having a history of drug and property offenses, there wasn’t any previous record of violent crimes. It also claims officers were informed at 8:24 p.m. the night of the incident that Sheeler was unarmed — eight minutes before the shooting — and that Sheeler’s hands were visible to the officers with nothing the officers “could claim to have mistaken for a gun.”

Finally, the officers providing contradicting commands showed the officers did not have a plan to avoid the shooting — which was “not consistent with well-established police practices,” the response, filed Feb. 21, says.

A decision regarding the motion for summary judgment hasn’t been published yet. A hearing for that decision hasn’t been scheduled.