Gregory v. City of Trussville

This civil rights lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Alabama following a fatal police shooting in Trussville. On February 13, 2025, officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at a residence. Michael Gregory, a 34-year-old African American man experiencing a mental health crisis, was confronted by Officers Hayes and Montgomery. Body camera footage allegedly shows Gregory holding a kitchen knife but remaining stationary. Within seconds of arrival, officers discharged their weapons, striking Gregory multiple times. He was pronounced dead at the scene. The plaintiffs, Gregory’s family, allege the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, failing to employ de-escalation techniques or crisis intervention training. The complaint further claims the City of Trussville maintained a custom of condoning police violence through inadequate training and supervision.

The case is in its preliminary stages as of mid-2026. The court has denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint plausibly alleges constitutional violations. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.

Whether the officers’ use of deadly force against an individual holding a knife but not advancing was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; whether the officers failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act given Gregory’s known mental health crisis; and whether the municipality is liable under Monell for a pattern of inadequate training on mental health crisis response.

The shooting has intensified calls for police reform in Trussville and Jefferson County, sparking peaceful protests led by Gregory’s family and local civil rights organizations. The case has prompted the Trussville City Council to review its police department’s use-of-force policies and explore mandating Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) certification for all officers. The litigation is being closely monitored by advocacy groups as a significant test of the intersection between mental health crisis response and qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit.