The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has certified two critical questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in a complex civil rights lawsuit stemming from a fatal police shooting involving the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The certification order, filed Jan. 2, 2026, in *K.C. v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department* (9th Cir. 2026), represents a procedural step that could significantly impact how police use-of-force cases are litigated under state law.
The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including two minors identified as K.C. and A.S., who are represented by guardians ad litem Carolina Navarro and Araceli Saenz, respectively. The lawsuit also includes Keith Childress Sr., who serves as successor in interest to his deceased son Keith Childress Jr., and Frederick Waid, the special administrator of Childress Jr.'s estate. Additional guardians ad litem Amber Neubert and plaintiff Jacqueline Lawrence are also named in the action.
The defendants include the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Department of Justice, and several individual officers: Robert Bohanon, Blake Walford, and James Ledogar. Brian Montana and the United States Marshals Service are also named as defendants in the case.
According to the court's summary, the underlying incident involved "a lethal shooting in which police officers mistakenly believed that a suspect carried a firearm." This factual scenario has become increasingly significant in civil rights litigation, particularly as courts grapple with the intersection of state tort law and federal constitutional claims in police misconduct cases.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and Holly A. Thomas, heard oral arguments on Oct. 6, 2025, in Las Vegas. The court's decision to certify questions to the Nevada Supreme Court reflects the complex interplay between federal civil rights law and state tort principles when evaluating police conduct.
While the complete text of the certified questions was not fully visible in the available court documents, the summary indicates that at least one question concerns "whether a plaintiff can raise a theory of negligence based on an officer's intentional use of" force. This legal issue represents a nuanced area where state tort law intersects with federal constitutional standards for evaluating police use of force.
Certification procedures allow federal courts to seek guidance from state supreme courts on questions of state law that are unclear or unsettled. This process ensures that federal courts apply state law correctly while avoiding the creation of federal precedent that might misinterpret state legal principles. The Ninth Circuit's decision to certify rather than rule on these questions demonstrates the court's recognition that the underlying legal issues require authoritative interpretation by Nevada's highest court.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, where Chief District Judge Andrew P. Gordon presided. The district court case number 2:16-cv-03039-APG-NJK indicates the lawsuit was filed in 2016, suggesting years of litigation have preceded this appellate stage.
The involvement of multiple minors and guardians ad litem adds complexity to the case, as does the presence of both state and federal defendants. The inclusion of the Department of Justice and U.S. Marshals Service suggests the incident may have involved federal law enforcement cooperation or oversight.
For the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the case represents another significant legal challenge involving use-of-force policies and training. The department has faced scrutiny in recent years over officer-involved shootings and use-of-force incidents, making this case particularly relevant to ongoing discussions about police accountability and reform.
The legal questions being certified likely relate to whether Nevada tort law permits negligence claims against officers who use intentional force, even when that force is based on mistaken perceptions. This issue has implications beyond this specific case, as it could affect how similar claims are evaluated throughout Nevada.
State courts' interpretation of tort law in police use-of-force cases can significantly impact plaintiffs' ability to seek damages and hold officers accountable. While federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provide one avenue for relief, state law claims often offer additional theories of liability and potential remedies.
The Nevada Supreme Court's eventual response to the certified questions will provide guidance not only for this case but also for future litigation involving police use of force in the state. The court's interpretation could influence how Nevada law applies to situations where officers act on mistaken beliefs about threats posed by suspects.
Once the Nevada Supreme Court answers the certified questions, the case will return to the Ninth Circuit for resolution based on that guidance. The ultimate outcome could affect not only the immediate parties but also establish important precedent for evaluating police conduct in similar circumstances throughout the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.