Ross v. Rochell

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes and numerous other cases by denying qualified immunity notwithstanding the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting the petitioner, Cody Ross; and (2) whether the 8th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard in denying qualified immunity based upon the absence of a constitutional violation given that the undisputed facts established that Ross acted reasonably in responding to the potential threat of an unrestrained suspect whose weapon – an assault rifle – was only several feet away.