Canton Police Shooting Lawsuit, James Williams’ Family Reaches Proposed $3.5 Million Settlement With the City of Canton

The City of Canton, Ohio has reportedly proposed a $3,500,000 settlement with the family and estate of James Williams, a 46-year-old man fatally shot by Canton police officer Robert Huber on New Year’s Day 2022. The proposal would resolve the federal civil rights and wrongful death lawsuit Williams v. City of Canton, No. 5:23-cv-00655 (N.D. Ohio), brought by his widow, Marquetta Williams, individually and as administratrix of his estate.

This is not a class action and not a public compensation program. There is no settlement website, claim form or claim deadline, and members of the public cannot apply for money from it.

As of October 21, 2026, the settlement is described as proposed and subject to the required court approval. A final approval order and payment have not been independently verified.

James Williams Settlement: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Official settlement website	None. This is not a public settlement program
Claim form	None
Claim deadline	None
Proposed settlement	$3,500,000
Type of case	Individual civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Ohio wrongful death case, not a class action
Person killed	James Williams, age 46
Date of shooting	January 1, 2022
Officer who fired	Robert Huber, Canton Police Department
Plaintiff	Marquetta Williams, individually and as administratrix of the Estate of James Williams
Defendants	City of Canton, Ohio, and Officer Robert Huber
Federal case	Williams v. City of Canton, No. 5:23-cv-00655, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
District judge	Benita Y. Pearson
Appeal	Williams v. City of Canton, No. 25-3304, Sixth Circuit (decided March 6, 2026)
Approval body	Stark County Probate Court (wrongful death settlement and allocation approval)
Status	Proposed; final approval and payment not independently verified

What Happened to James Williams on January 1, 2022?

According to the Sixth Circuit’s published opinion, James Williams and family members were celebrating the New Year by firing guns into the air at his Canton home. Officer Robert Huber, patrolling the neighborhood, heard repeated gunfire and went to investigate.

Huber arrived shortly after midnight, saw a man carrying a rifle go into the house, and radioed for backup. He remained outside waiting for additional officers. Williams later returned to a patio enclosed by a six-foot wooden privacy fence and began firing again. Huber moved toward the patio and fired through the fence, discharging eight rounds, six of which struck Williams. Williams made it back inside and told his wife he had been shot. He died before receiving hospital treatment.

Reporting on the case, including body camera footage, indicates that Huber shouted commands only after he had fired.

The central dispute in the litigation was what Huber could see and reasonably believe at the moment he fired. Huber testified that he thought Williams was turning his rifle toward him and that he feared for his safety. The family argued that Williams was still firing skyward and did not pose an immediate threat that justified deadly force.

Why Did Marquetta Williams Sue?

Marquetta Williams filed a federal lawsuit individually and as administratrix of her husband’s estate. The principal claims and legal issues were:

• Fourth Amendment excessive force, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows people to seek relief when someone acting under color of state law violates their constitutional rights.
• Municipal liability against the City of Canton under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), which requires proof of an unconstitutional policy, custom or failure to train that caused the violation.
• Qualified immunity, a defense Huber raised to avoid personal liability.
• Ohio wrongful death and related claims under state law.

Whether firing a gun into the air was lawful is a separate question from whether the officer’s deadly response was constitutional. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion discusses Canton’s ordinance treating the discharge of a firearm within city limits as a misdemeanor. A person’s own unlawful conduct does not automatically justify deadly force.

Court Rulings That Led to the Settlement

District Court: March 29–30, 2025

On March 29, 2025, Judge Pearson denied the City of Canton’s motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact about the city’s policies, practices and training related to celebratory gunfire and police responses to it.

On March 30, 2025, she denied Huber’s motion for summary judgment and his request for qualified immunity. She concluded that material factual disputes remained over whether Williams had turned the rifle toward Huber or continued firing into the air when Huber shot through the fence. If Williams had pointed the weapon at the officer in a way that reasonably signaled an imminent threat, the analysis could favor Huber. If he had kept firing skyward, a jury could reach a different conclusion.

These were procedural rulings. They allowed the claims to proceed to a jury. They were not findings of liability.

Sixth Circuit: March 6, 2026

Huber appealed the denial of qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. It held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Williams’ widow, a jury could find Huber used deadly force without probable cause to believe Williams posed a threat of serious physical harm. The court also reasoned that an officer may not shoot a person without warning simply because the person is committing a misdemeanor by firing a weapon into the air, where the circumstances do not give reason to believe the person poses a serious threat.

The court did not convict Huber of any crime, did not award the family $3.5 million, and did not decide final liability. It addressed qualified immunity and the continuation of the case.

Criminal Review

Reporting at the time indicated that the shooting was reviewed by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and presented to a Stark County grand jury. A grand jury decision not to indict is a criminal-law outcome and does not control a civil case, where the standard of proof is lower (preponderance of the evidence) and different legal questions apply.

Why Is Canton Proposing a $3.5 Million Settlement?

A negotiated settlement avoids the cost, delay and uncertainty of a jury trial and further appeals. After the Sixth Circuit’s decision, the core dispute remained for a jury: what Huber reasonably perceived, whether his force was objectively unreasonable, and whether the city’s policies or training were to blame.

A trial could also have involved video evidence, expert testimony and questions about police training and municipal practices. Settlement is a compromise. It does not by itself establish that Canton or Huber violated the Constitution, and it should not be described as an admission unless the signed agreement says so.

Reported Distribution of the $3.5 Million

Important verification note: The figures below come from reporting on the proposed application filed with the Stark County Probate Court. We were not able to retrieve the probate filing itself, and the reported numbers do not fully reconcile (see the note under the table). Treat these as reported, proposed and unconfirmed until the probate order is available.

Related article: Estée Lauder $210 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Wins Final Approval, Who Qualified, Claim Deadline, Attorney Fees and What Happens Next

Item	Reported proposed amount
Gross settlement	$3,500,000
Attorneys’ fees (reported 40%)	$1,400,000
Reimbursed litigation costs	Reported as approximately $140,000 to $143,290
Net recovery to the family	Reported as approximately $1,960,000
Marquetta Williams (widow)	Reported as $396,709
Four daughters	Reported as approximately $390,822.75 each, about $1,563,291 combined

Reconciliation note: A $1,400,000 fee plus $143,290 in costs equals $1,543,290, which would leave $1,956,710 for the family, not $1,960,000. A $140,000 cost figure produces the $1,960,000 net. The final probate order will control.

Reported Insurance and City Funding

Reporting indicates that Canton would pay a $125,000 deductible and the remaining balance (about $3,375,000) would be covered by the city’s risk-coverage provider, the Ohio Plan. This has not been independently verified.

Who Can Receive Money From the Settlement?

Only the people entitled under the settlement and Ohio wrongful death law, here the surviving spouse and children, can receive compensation if the agreement becomes final. Other people cannot claim money from this agreement merely because they:

• live in Canton or Stark County;
• have experienced a police encounter in Ohio;
• have a relative injured in an unrelated incident; or
• believe they suffered excessive force in a separate case.

A separate incident may support its own claim, but it would need its own legal basis and must meet its own filing deadlines.

Beware of Fake “Claim Form” Websites

There is no claim form for this settlement. Do not give personal information, bank details or fees to any website or caller claiming to offer a share of the James Williams settlement. Use court records to verify developments.

The Law Behind the Case

Section 1983 and the Fourth Amendment

A police shooting is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Excessive force claims are judged by objective reasonableness under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), looking at the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether he was resisting or fleeing, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

For deadly force specifically, Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), holds that deadly force is unreasonable unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others. Where possible, a warning should be given before using deadly force.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). Denials of qualified immunity can be appealed immediately under the collateral-order doctrine (Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)), but appellate review is generally limited to legal questions, which is why genuine factual disputes usually send the case to a jury.

Municipal Liability (Monell)

A city cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. The plaintiff must show that a policy, custom or failure to train was the moving force behind the violation (Monell; City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)). The district court found enough of a factual dispute on this question to deny Canton summary judgment.

Ohio Wrongful Death Act

Ohio’s wrongful death statute, R.C. 2125.01 and 2125.02, allows an action for a death caused by wrongful act, neglect or default. The action is brought by the personal representative of the decedent for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children and parents, and other next of kin. The probate court’s role in approving a wrongful death settlement and its allocation among beneficiaries is why the Stark County Probate Court is involved (see R.C. 2125.02 and 2125.03). A related survival claim for the decedent’s own pre-death injuries can be pursued by the estate.

Ohio Political Subdivision Immunity

Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, R.C. Chapter 2744, gives cities and their employees broad immunity from state-law tort claims, subject to enumerated exceptions. State-law claims against municipal employees may be barred unless the employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner (R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)). Federal § 1983 claims are governed by federal law, and state immunity does not defeat them.

Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

In successful § 1983 cases, the court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In a negotiated settlement, however, fees are typically set by the contingency agreement and approved by the probate court, which is why the reported 40% figure comes out of the settlement itself.

Punitive Damages and Cities

Municipalities are immune from punitive damages under § 1983 (City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981)), though punitive damages can be sought against an individual officer in the right case.

Statute of Limitations

Ohio wrongful death actions must generally be filed within two years of the death (R.C. 2125.02(D)). Section 1983 claims in Ohio borrow Ohio’s two-year personal injury limitations period. Anyone with a separate claim should consult an attorney promptly about their own deadlines.

Tax Treatment

Under Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)), damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness, including wrongful death recoveries, are generally excluded from gross income. Punitive damages and interest are generally taxable. Individual circumstances vary, so recipients should consult a qualified tax professional. This article is not tax advice.

Why There Is No “Objector” Process

A Rule 23 class action settlement lets class members object. This is an individual estate settlement, so there is no class and no class objection procedure. Oversight comes from the probate court, which evaluates whether the settlement and the allocation among beneficiaries are fair and proper.

What Happens Next?

1. Finalize the agreement. The parties complete the settlement documents and any releases.
2. Probate court approval. The Stark County Probate Court reviews the settlement and the allocation among the beneficiaries. The judge’s approval, reported to be Judge Curt Werren, is required before the settlement can be treated as final.
3. Payment. After approval, the city and its coverage provider fund the payment, and the estate distributes it under the court’s order. A payment date has not been confirmed.
4. Dismissal of the federal case. The parties typically file a stipulation of dismissal in federal court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) once the settlement is final.

A tentative agreement, a signed agreement, a court-approved settlement and a completed payment are four different stages. An announcement of a proposal does not confirm that the family has been paid.

Key Dates

Date	Event
January 1, 2022	Robert Huber fatally shoots James Williams in Canton, Ohio
March 28, 2023	Federal docket No. 5:23-cv-00655 opened for the civil rights lawsuit
March 29, 2025	District court denies Canton’s motion for summary judgment
March 30, 2025	District court denies Huber’s summary judgment and qualified immunity motion
March 6, 2026	Sixth Circuit affirms denial of qualified immunity (No. 25-3304)
September 2026	Parties reportedly reach a tentative settlement
October 19–20, 2026	Reporting describes the proposed $3.5 million settlement and the probate approval process
October 21, 2026	Final approval and payment status not independently verified

How This Case Compares to Other Police Shooting Settlements

Settlements in police shooting cases depend on their own facts, defendants, claims and terms. The amount announced is not the amount a family receives after fees and costs. See the related AllAboutLawyer.com coverage below for comparison.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the City of Canton finalized the $3.5 million James Williams settlement?

The proposal has been reported, but final approval has not been independently verified. The signed agreement and the court’s approval order control.

Can Canton residents file a claim?

No. There is no claim form, website or deadline. This is an individual wrongful death and civil rights case, not a class action.

What happened to James Williams on January 1, 2022?

Williams was firing a rifle into the air during a New Year’s celebration when Officer Robert Huber responded to the gunfire and shot him through a wooden privacy fence. Huber fired eight rounds, six of which struck Williams. The circumstances were disputed in court.

Did the Sixth Circuit find Officer Huber guilty of a crime?

No. It decided a civil appeal about qualified immunity. It did not convict anyone.

Did a court find Canton liable?

No. The district court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment, which allowed the claims to continue. That is not a finding of liability after trial.

Was the shooting a crime because Williams fired into the air?

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion discusses Canton’s ordinance treating discharge of a firearm in the city as a misdemeanor. The legal question in the civil case was whether the officer’s deadly response was constitutional, which is a different question.

How much will Marquetta Williams and her daughters receive?

The total proposed amount is $3.5 million. Reporting describes a net family recovery of roughly $1.96 million after fees and costs, but the exact shares must be confirmed from the probate filing and order.

Why is a probate court involved?

Under Ohio wrongful death law, the court that oversees the estate reviews the settlement and its allocation among the beneficiaries.

Are the settlement proceeds taxable?

Wrongful death compensatory damages are generally excluded from federal income under IRC § 104(a)(2), but interest and punitive damages can be taxable. Consult a tax professional.

Does the settlement mean the city or officer admitted wrongdoing?

Not unless the signed agreement says so. A settlement is a compromise of disputed claims.

When will the family be paid?

A confirmed payment date has not been verified. Payment depends on the final agreement and required approvals.

Where can I find the official records?

The federal case is Williams v. City of Canton, No. 5:23-cv-00655 (N.D. Ohio). The appeal is No. 25-3304 (6th Cir.). Probate filings can be requested through the Stark County Probate Court.

Related Coverage on AllAboutLawyer.com

• City of Buffalo $4.5 Million Police Shooting Settlement: Jose Hernandez-Rossy Case Update
• Cortez Bufford Family’s $1,687,483 Settlement With St. Louis Officer Lucas Roethlisberger Approved by Federal Judge
• Joseph Perez Fresno Police Restraint Settlement: City and County Pay More Than $10 Million
• Jason Arrington Lawsuit: Florida Man Shot With His Own Gun During Traffic Stop

These are separate cases and should not be confused with the Canton litigation.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal, tax or financial advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Allegations in a civil lawsuit are not findings of liability. The settlement amount, approval status and distribution terms should be verified against official court documents.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher who studies court records, settlement notices and official filings to explain legal developments in plain English. His work focuses on helping readers understand what a lawsuit or settlement means, who may be affected and where to find authoritative information.

Sources

1. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Williams v. City of Canton, No. 25-3304, published opinion filed March 6, 2026: opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0071p-06.pdf
2. U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, Williams v. City of Canton, No. 5:23-cv-00655, Doc. 97 (March 30, 2025), order denying Officer Huber’s summary judgment motion: law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohndce/5:2023cv00655/296156/97/
3. Same court and case, Doc. 96 (March 29, 2025), order denying the City of Canton’s summary judgment motion: law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohndce/5:2023cv00655/296156/96/
4. Federal docket, Williams v. City of Canton, No. 5:23-cv-00655: dockets.justia.com/docket/ohio/ohndce/5:2023cv00655/296156
5. Stark County Probate Court (official court information and case search): starkcountyohio.gov/government/legal_judicial/probate_court/
6. Associated Press, “Family of Black man killed by Ohio police files civil rights lawsuit” (PBS NewsHour): pbs.org/newshour/nation/family-of-black-man-killed-by-ohio-police-files-civil-rights-lawsuit
7. Local news reporting on the proposed $3.5 million settlement and probate application (October 2026), including the reported allocation and insurance figures, which could not be independently verified against the probate filing
8. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; Ohio Revised Code §§ 2125.01, 2125.02, 2125.03, and Chapter 2744; 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)
9. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985); Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981)