A defendant may sue the correctional officer who shot him while he attempted to flee a courtroom, a federal judge in Colorado decided last week.

The officer’s “immediate resort to his firearm, and the large number of shots discharged, evince little to no consideration of whether such force was necessary, nor any effort to minimize the force used,” wrote U.S. District Judge William J. Martínez in a Jan. 20 order.

Brian Estrada was a pretrial detainee at Sterling Correctional Facility. On May 30, 2018, he was present in the Logan County Justice Center for a proceeding related to his charge of second-degree assault on a peace officer. The Denver Post reported Estrada previously received convictions for introduction of contraband at Sterling.

Bound with wrist and ankle shackles at the time, Estrada attempted to flee the courtroom.

There were four correctional officers present in the courtroom, including Officer Jacob Smart. As Estrada moved toward the door, Smart shot him four times in his midsection, chest, hand and arm. Estrada collapsed in the hallway outside the courtroom.

Estrada filed a federal complaint against Smart in February 2020, alleging the officer used greater force than was necessary to prevent his escape in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Smart invoked qualified immunity, which is a judicial doctrine that shields government employees from liability absent a violation of clearly-established legal rights.

Estrada argued it was unnecessary for Smart to shoot him because of the substantial obstacles preventing his escape, including the four officers, an additional security guard at the exit, and the fact that he had little idea where he was going in the building.

“During an interview following the shooting, the judge in the courtroom, Judge [Carl] McGuire, stated that the thought that ran through his head when Mr. Estrada was attempting to leave the courtroom was that there was no way Mr. Estrada was going to run fast enough to get out the doors, down the stairs, and out the front door, before somebody got him,” wrote Scott H. Palmer, an attorney representing Estrada.

In April 2019, the 13th Judicial District Attorney’s Office deemed Smart justified in his use of force. The findings quoted Smart’s statement to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation that he was the “last line of defense” between Estrada and the public, and noted the officer’s concern that Estrada might attempt to grab his weapon.

“All the witnesses described the officer’s verbal commands to stop and get down on the floor,” wrote Brittny B. Lewton, the district attorney at the time. “All the witnesses described the officer’s attempt to back up and then ultimately firing at Estrada once it became clear he was not heeding any commands to stop.”

Palmer and James P. Roberts, Estrada’s other attorney, acknowledged to Colorado Politics that “mental health issues likely played a role” in their client’s decision to exit, but explained that another officer in the room had managed to push Estrada to the ground with only one hand – a far lesser degree of force than Smart used.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, defending Smart, argued in response to the lawsuit that previous court rulings illustrated how “a corrections officer may violate an inmate’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive force if that officer, believing the inmate would be a threat to the community if he escaped, shot an inmate who attempted to escape from a courthouse.”

The defense cited multiple cases, but Martínez rejected all of those examples, noting a key difference in Estrada’s shooting: “unlike as is manifestly the case here, they were not otherwise restrained,” he wrote.

“The Court finds that given the totality of these circumstances, the Plaintiff has met his burden of alleging facts that establish that Defendant acted maliciously and sadistically,” the judge concluded, using terminology the U.S. Supreme Court has established for evaluating such cases.

Martínez denied Smart’s motion to dismiss the case.

“Mr. Estrada has recovered the best he can from the injuries Defendant Smart inflicted,” said Estrada’s attorneys. However, “he has multiple scars on his body from the bullet wounds and he lost his thumb as a result of this unnecessary shooting.”

Spokespersons for the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Corrections indicated they could not comment on active litigation.

The case is Estrada v. Smart.