Estate of Joseph Lopez v. Matthew Hamilton/City of Greensboro (4th Cir., 2024)
Facts
On November 19, 2021, police responded to a report that Joseph Lopez was trying to enter a residence.
Officers, including Officer Hamilton (a K-9 handler), located Lopez inside a small room at the rear of a garage.
Hamilton opened the door (while remaining outside), announced “Greensboro police, if you’re in there, make yourself known,” and then said, “Come on out with your hands up or I’ll send my dog in there and he’ll bite you.”
Lopez responded that he would come out when safe.
Hamilton released his K-9 into the room, which attacked Lopez. Almost immediately, Hamilton entered the room and shot Lopez in the face, killing him.
At the time of the shooting, Lopez was approximately fifteen feet from Hamilton, unarmed, and (as alleged in the complaint) did not pose an immediate threat.
Claims & Legal Issues
The Estate brought multiple claims:
§ 1983 excessive force claim against Officer Hamilton ( alleging violation of Lopez’s Fourth Amendment rights ).
§ 1983 Monell claim against the City of Greensboro (for policies or customs leading to the use of force)
State law wrongful death claim under North Carolina law against Hamilton.
On motion, Hamilton asserted:
Qualified immunity from the constitutional § 1983 claims
Public official immunity from the state wrongful death claim
That the pleadings did not state a plausible claim for relief
Holding & Reasoning
The 4th Circuit affirmed the denial of Hamilton’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The appellate court held that, accepting the facts in the complaint as accurate and drawing all inferences in favor of the Estate, the pleadings sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation and overcame the immunity arguments at that stage.
The Fourth Circuit did not resolve the merits of the force claim or fully decide immunity; instead, it found that Hamilton was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the pleadings.
Because the appeal was from a denial of a motion on the pleadings (not summary judgment or trial), the panel deferred fact determinations to further proceedings.
Significance & Takeaways
The decision illustrates the standard in § 1983 cases, which requires courts to accept the plaintiff’s version of factual allegations and deny immunity if the complaint plausibly states a constitutional violation.
It shows that even in deadly force cases involving police dogs and shooting, qualified immunity may not protect an officer at the pleadings stage if the facts alleged suggest the use of excessive force.
Because this is an unpublished decision, it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit; however, it may serve as a guide for how lower courts treat similar motions in the early stages.
The case also underscores the tension in split-second decision-making where officers use multiple force modalities (dog + firearm) in quick succession.
