Fitzpatrick v. Birmingham, City of

On April 30, 2026, Birmingham police responded to a domestic disturbance call. During the encounter, Officer Mark Stephens fatally shot 23-year-old Michael Fitzpatrick, who was unarmed. Officer Stephens claimed Fitzpatrick lunged at him, but witness accounts and partial video disputed this narrative. Jane Fitzpatrick filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Birmingham and Officer Stephens, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also advanced a Monell claim, arguing the City exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to train and supervise its officers adequately. The incident ignited widespread protests in Birmingham, placing the case at the center of the national conversation on police violence against African Americans. At trial, the core factual dispute was whether the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

In 2028, a federal jury returned a split verdict. Officer Stephens was granted qualified immunity and found not personally liable. However, the City of Birmingham was found liable under Monell for deliberate indifference in training and supervision, and the jury awarded $3.1 million in compensatory damages to the Fitzpatrick family. The City subsequently filed an appeal.

The primary legal dispute was whether Officer Stephens used constitutionally excessive deadly force, and whether the City of Birmingham could be held liable for a pattern of inadequate training that caused the shooting. A secondary focus was the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, with the plaintiff arguing the right to be free from such force was clearly established.

The verdict intensified local and national protests against qualified immunity and police brutality. In response, the Birmingham City Council adopted mandatory de-escalation training and enhanced body-worn camera policies. The case fueled ongoing legislative debates over federal police reform and contributed to renewed scrutiny of municipal liability doctrines in police misconduct litigation.