Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13301/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13301

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-21069-FAM

DAVID CALDERIN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

J.D. Patterson in his official capacity as Director, et al.,

 Defendants,

ERIC H. SCHOTTENHEIMER, 

individually and in his official capacity as an

officer of the Miami-Dade Police Department,

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 5, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 1 of 11
2

Before MARCUS, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by David 

Calderin against Officer Erik Schottenheimer of the Miami-Dade Police 

Department (MDPD). Officer Schottenheimer appeals the district court’s denial of 

his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Because Officer 

Schottenheimer’s use of force violated Calderin’s clearly established Fourth 

Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, we affirm.

I.

On December 29, 2011, Calderin texted a former girlfriend, Anam Aziz 

(Anam) to tell her that he was going to speak with her father, Hussein Aziz

(Hussein), at the car dealership where he worked. Calderin also told Anam, via 

text message, that he would kill himself if she called the police. Anam called the 

police and notified them of the messages she received from Calderin, including his 

threat to commit suicide.

As promised, Calderin went to the car dealership where Hussein worked, 

carrying a thirteen-inch knife in his pocket. According to Calderin, he brought the 

knife with him because he believed that he would be taken in for psychiatric 

treatment, rather than arrested, if police discovered the knife.

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 2 of 11
3

After Anam’s 911 call, police dispatch sent MDPD Officer Nery de Leon 

Lowry to the dealership. Officer Lowry reported that, when she arrived, Calderin 

appeared sad, disappointed, and hopeless. Hussein was apparently in the process 

of telling Calderin that his relationship with Anam was over and that Anam would 

be getting married in a matter of months. Calderin and Hussein finished their 

conversation with a hug when Officer Lowry arrived. Meanwhile, Officer 

Schottenheimer was patrolling the area and heard a request for backup to the 

dealership over the radio. He also learned via radio that Anam had told the 911 

dispatcher that Calderin threatened to commit suicide. Officer Schottenheimer 

appeared on the scene approximately when Hussein and Calderin were wrapping 

up their conversation and while Officer Lowry was approaching the pair. Officer 

Schottenheimer reported that none of the individuals present seemed to be 

exhibiting any emotions.

Officer Lowry asked Calderin whether he was, in fact, David Calderin. 

When Calderin responded affirmatively, Officer Lowry asked whether he had any 

weapons. Calderin told Officer Lowry that he had a knife in his pocket. Officer 

Lowry announced that Calderin had a knife “very loudly.” Officer Lowry ordered 

Calderin to raise his hands above his head and placed her hand on her Taser. 

Calderin instead reached for and grabbed the knife, which was sheathed and in his 

pants pocket. He loudly announced that he had a knife and raised the knife toward 

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 3 of 11
4

his own neck. Three seconds after taking the knife from his pocket, he was shot in 

the arm by Officer Schottenheimer. At that time, Calderin estimates that he was 

ten to twelve feet from Officer Lowry and thirty feet from Officer Schottenheimer. 

Officer Schottenheimer estimates these distances at seven to eight feet and fifteen 

to eighteen feet, respectively. Calderin dropped the knife immediately when he 

was shot.1

 Calderin never removed the knife from its sheath. Officer 

Schottenheimer claims that he never heard Officer Lowry or Calderin say that 

Calderin had a knife. Officer Schottenheimer also claims that he thought the knife 

was a revolver, specifically that the knife’s handle looked like the grip of a 

revolver.

Immediately after getting shot in the arm, Calderin turned his back on the 

officers and began to run from them. He did not attempt to reach for the knife 

again. Officer Schottenheimer shot him four additional times. Officer 

Schottenheimer claims to have seen the knife fall to the ground only after firing his 

final shot.

During Calderin’s raising of the knife and Officer Schottenheimer’s shots, 

no individuals besides Calderin and the two officers were present, though Officer 

Schottenheimer claims that Hussein was still in the vicinity and was standing close 

to Calderin. Calderin claims not to have heard any warning from Officer 

 1 Calderin’s expert witness testified in a deposition that it would be impossible for 

Calderin to continue to hold onto the knife after being shot in the same arm that held the knife.

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 4 of 11
5

Schottenheimer prior to his discharging his weapon. Officer Schottenheimer 

insists that he warned Calderin twice to get on the ground. Officer Schottenheimer 

did not warn Calderin that he would shoot. Officer Lowry testified that Calderin 

seemed more compliant when she was the only officer on the scene. While he was 

on the ground after the shooting, Calderin heard Officer Lowry admonishing 

Officer Schottenheimer that he did not have to shoot Calderin because she had just 

finished telling him that Calderin had a knife. Moreover, Officer Lowry never 

drew her gun. MDPD classified Calderin’s criminal conduct as misdemeanor 

carrying of a concealed weapon.

II.

We review the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de 

novo. McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2009). Summary 

judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a). We view the evidence and draw inferences in a light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F.3d 266, 272 (11th 

Cir. 2013). In § 1983 cases where the defendant raises a qualified immunity 

defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that defendant violated a 

constitutional right and that that right was clearly established when the violation 

occurred. Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152, 1156 (11th Cir. 2005).

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 5 of 11
6

A.

Calderin argues that Officer Schottenheimer violated his right to be free 

from unreasonable seizures when Officer Schottenheimer shot him. See U.S. 

Const. amend. IV. Calderin maintains that all of the shots that hit him violated that 

right. Officer Schottenheimer counters that his discharging of his weapon was 

reasonable under the circumstances. See Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 

821 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that police are entitled to use a reasonable 

amount of force—judged under the circumstances—in carrying out their duties). 

When considering the reasonableness of a seizure, we “balanc[e] the ‘nature and 

quality of the intrusion’ against the ‘governmental interest at stake.’” Mercado, 

407 F.3d at 1157 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 

1871 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “When determining the 

government’s interest, we must consider factors that include ‘the severity of the 

crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the 

officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade 

arrest by flight.’” Id. (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872).

Preliminarily, we must address Officer Schottenheimer’s assertions 

regarding his perception of the circumstances surrounding the shooting: (1) that he 

believed that Calderin was holding a gun and not a knife; (2) that he did not see 

Calderin drop the knife after the first shot; and (3) that he believed Hussein to have 

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 6 of 11
7

remained in the area after his arrival. Officer Schottenheimer’s reasonable beliefs 

about the circumstances surrounding the shooting are relevant to the 

reasonableness of his actions. See St. George v. Pinellas Cnty., 285 F.3d 1334, 

1337 (11th Cir. 2002) (“We then ask not whether probable cause existed but 

whether the officer reasonably believed it existed, based upon the information he 

or she possessed at the time of the incident.”). However, applying the summary 

judgment requirement that we view the facts in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, and remaining mindful that a factfinder is entitled to disbelieve 

the defendant, see Acoff v. Abston, 762 F.2d 1543, 1548 (11th Cir. 1985), we must 

assume that Officer Schottenheimer knew the facts as Calderin sets them out. In 

other words, we assume that Officer Schottenheimer knew that Calderin was 

holding a knife, that Calderin dropped the knife after the first shot, and that 

Hussein was no longer in the vicinity.

Thus, the situation can be summarized as follows. Officer Schottenheimer 

arrived at the dealership, where he saw Calderin, whom he knew was suicidal. 

Calderin drew the knife, bringing it close to his own chest or neck area. Officer 

Lowry and Calderin both announced that Calderin had a knife, with Calderin 

making his announcement while he held the knife, and Officer Schottenheimer 

heard them. The only other individual in the vicinity was Officer Lowry, who was 

ten to twelve feet away. Officer Schottenheimer was thirty feet away. Calderin 

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 7 of 11
8

did not make any threatening movements. Officer Schottenheimer resorted to 

lethal force to disarm Calderin without giving Calderin any warning. Immediately 

after the first shot, Calderin dropped the knife, which Officer Schottenheimer saw. 

Calderin turned to escape the gunfire, and Officer Schottenheimer continued to 

shoot, even though he knew that Calderin had dropped the knife.

Under the Mercado/Graham balancing test, the nature and quality of the 

intrusion here is extremely severe. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9, 105 S. 

Ct. 1694, 1700 (1985) (“The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is 

unmatched.”).

Considering the governmental interest side of the balancing test, first, the 

crime at issue was not severe; MDPD eventually categorized it as a misdemeanor. 

See Galvez v. Bruce, 552 F.3d 1238, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e note that the 

crimes with which Galvez was charged were not severe; petit theft and resisting 

arrest without violence are both misdemeanors . . . .”).

Calderin also did not pose a threat to the safety of the officers or others. 

Mercado provides us with precedent with strikingly similar facts where we held 

that there was little to no safety issue and eventually ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. 

There, the plaintiff threatened to attempt suicide by hanging after a fight with his 

wife. 407 F.3d at 1154. The wife called 911 and reported that her husband was 

suicidal. Id. When two police officers entered the home, the plaintiff was sitting 

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 8 of 11
9

on the floor, crying, and pointing the knife at his heart. Id. The officers ordered 

the plaintiff to drop the knife, but he refused. Id. The plaintiff never made 

threatening moves toward the officers. Id. The officers did not warn the plaintiff 

that they would use force if he did not drop the weapon. Id. Fifteen to thirty 

seconds later, one officer ordered the other to fire a non-lethal round at the 

plaintiff, which he did. Id. at 1154–55. The police department’s policies allowed 

targeting of the head or neck with the non-lethal round only in situations where 

deadly force—i.e., force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm—would be 

justified. Id. at 1155.

“The defendants claim[ed] that the use of force [was] justified because 

suicidal subjects sometimes make erratic moves that can jeopardize the safety of 

the officers on the scene.” Id. at 1157. We concluded that the plaintiff was not 

“posing an immediate threat to the officers at the time he was shot in the head”

largely because there was “no indication that [the plaintiff] made any threatening 

moves toward the police.” Id. at 1157–58. Likewise, speculation about erratic 

moves Calderin may have made or other weapons he may have had on his person 

are insufficient to justify the force applied here when Calderin was merely holding 

the knife. Moreover, we find it relevant to the inquiry of how a reasonable officer 

would react to the situation that Officer Lowry never felt the need to draw her 

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 9 of 11
10

firearm, even though she was closer to Calderin, and admonished Officer 

Schottenheimer for shooting Calderin.

Finally, whether Calderin was resisting or evading arrest also fits nicely into 

the analysis contained in Mercado. In Mercado, as is the case here, the plaintiff 

failed to comply with instructions from the officers. Id. at 1157. In some ways, 

failing to comply with officer instructions may be considered resisting arrest or at 

least akin to it. Nonetheless, we held that the plaintiff “was not actively resisting 

arrest” and noted the fact that he did not struggle with the officers. Id. Similarly, 

here, we cannot say that Calderin was resisting arrest, even though he was not 

complying with officer instructions.

With two of the governmental interest factors weighing heavily against 

Officer Schottenheimer and another barely, if at all, weighing in his favor, the 

balance between the intrusion and the governmental interest tips the scale against 

Officer Schottenheimer. His initial firing of his weapon was an unreasonable use 

of force under the circumstances. The same can be said of the subsequent shots 

fired during Calderin’s flight because, taking the facts in the light most favorable 

to Calderin, Officer Schottenheimer knew that Calderin was unarmed after the first 

shot and did not pose a threat of immediate harm to others. See Garner, 471 U.S. 

at 3, 105 S. Ct. at 1697 (holding that the use of deadly force against a fleeing 

suspect is unreasonable unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the 

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 10 of 11
11

suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer 

or others”). Therefore, Officer Schottenheimer violated Calderin’s constitutional 

right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

B.

We must now determine whether the right Officer Schottenheimer violated 

was clearly established. A right is clearly established where there exists “a 

materially similar case that has already decided that what the police officer was 

doing was unlawful.” Durruthy v. Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080, 1092 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have already discussed Mercado, which 

we decided approximately six years before the shooting here. The facts of that 

case were sufficiently similar to put Officer Schottenheimer on notice that his 

conduct would violate Calderin’s constitutional right. In fact, Mercado is nearly 

indistinguishable on the material facts. Calderin’s right, then, was clearly 

established when Officer Schottenheimer violated it.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-13301 Date Filed: 02/05/2015 Page: 11 of 11