Yet the Thompsons ask the court to submit this case to a jury, arguing that such an outcome is required by
Lytle, 560 F.3d at 404. The case is inapposite.
Lytle was submitted to a jury for resolution of multiple outstanding issues of fact.
Id. at 407, 418. The case involved the pursuit of a serial carjacker who was driving a stolen vehicle.
Id. at 407. After a brief chase, the suspect's vehicle collided with a parked car, interrupting the flight.
Ibid. When the suspect unexpectedly resumed driving, the pursuing officer fired two shots into the rear of the vehicle, striking and killing a child sitting in the back seat.
Id. at 408. There was no video of the pursuit, and it was unclear from the record whether the suspect was resuming flight, whether he was moving toward the officer, and whether the officer had endangered third parties by firing the weapon in a residential area.
Id. at 412–13. As a consequence, the district court found it impossible to determine whether the officer's conduct had been reasonable.
Id. at 418. Upon interlocutory review this court agreed that the outstanding factual questions should be resolved by a jury.
Ibid. In the present case, the plaintiffs have identified no analogous material dispute to submit to a jury. As already explained, the uncontested facts reveal that the Thompsons have not overcome Mercer's qualified immunity defense. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Mercer is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
See Scott, 550 U.S. at 381 n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 1769 (explaining that where the material facts are beyond dispute, the reasonableness of the official's use of force is “a pure question of law”).