FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13640

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 31 -C V -1-W S -M W I L L I A M J O S E P H P H I L L I P S , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s O F F I C E R B .E . I R V I N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, W . M . ( M I K E ) C O P P A G E , i nd i vi du al l y a nd i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s the D ir e c to r , D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 28, 2007)Honora ble Judith M. Barzil ay, Judg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ng * by designation. Under the collateral order doctrine , we have jurisdiction to reviewthe denial of state- 1 ag ent immunity

when the de fenda

nt appeals “both the denial of [state-ag ent] immunity and the denial of qualified immunity from the same proc edural posture and under the identical assumption reg ardingthe validity of the district cour

t’s summary-judgment fac ts.” Tay lor v. Adams, 221 F .3d 1254, 1260 n.9 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 B ef ore H U L L and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B A R Z IL A Y , Judg e. * P E R C U R I A M: T hi s c a s e a r i s e s outof

de f e nda nt - appe l l a ntO f

f i c e rB . E . I r vi n’ s M a r c h 2003 a rr e s t o f p la in tif f - ap p e lle e W illia m J o s e p h P h illip s . I r v in in te r lo c u to r ily ap p e a ls f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e ntor de r , w hi c h gr a nt e d i n pa r ta nd deni ed i n p artIrvi n’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed I r vi n qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty w i th r e ga r d t o s e ve r a l of P hi l l i ps ’ s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 cl ai m s a nd di sm i ss ed ot hers of P hi l l i ps’ s c l ai m s a s l egal l y i nsuffi ci ent , bu tdeni ed Irv i n q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty as t o P h i l l i p s’ s ex cessi v e fo rce cl ai m an d P h i l l i p s’ s F i rst A m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o de ni e d I rvi n s t a t e - a ge nt i m m un i ty a s t o P hi l l i ps’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s a ri si ng ou tof Irvi n’ s use of forc e. 1 A f t e rr e vi e w a nd or a l a r gum e nt , w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to P h illip s ’s e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im a n d a s to P h illip s ’s s ta te l a w c l a i m s a r i s i ng outof I r vi n’ s us e of

f or c e . W e f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr ori n the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s w el l -reaso n ed an al ysi s o n th o se i ssu es.3

H ow ever , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng Irvi n q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty on P hi l l i ps’ s F i rs tA m endm entre t al i at i on cl ai m . T he di stri ctcourt m i s t a ke nl y c onc l ude d tha tI r vi n ne e de d t o e s t a bl i s h a c tua l pr oba bl e c a us e f or P h illip s ’s a rr e s t. U n d e ro u rp r e c e d e n t, I r v in o n ly n e e d e d to e s tab lis h a r g u a b le pr oba bl e c a us e , w hi c h I r vi n di d. S e e R e dd v. C i ty of E nt e rpr i s e , 140 F . 3d 1378, 13 83 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( st at i ng that“ [b] ec ause w e hol d thatthe offi ce rs had a r gua bl e pr oba bl e c a us e t o a rr e s t. . . f ordi s or de r l y c onduc t , w e m us thol d tha tthe o ffi cers are also en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty fro m th e p l ai n t i ffs’ F i rst A m e n d m e n t c la im s ” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . M o reo v er, i n g ran t i n g Irv i n q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty o n P h i l l i p s’ s fal se arrest c la im , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t its e lf d e te r m in e d th a t I r v in h a d a r g u a b le p r o b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s tP hi l l i ps f

orobs truc t i on of

gove rnm e nt a l ope r a t i ons , i n vi ol a t i on of A l a . C ode § 1 3 A - 1 0 - 2 . W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t I r v in h a d a r g u a b le p r o b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s t P h illip s f o ro b s tru c tio n , b a s e d o n th e to ta lity o f th e u n d is p u te d f

a c ts i n thi s c as e, i ncl ud i ng (a s s ho w n b y the i n-dash re cordi ng fr om Irvi n’ s patrol ca r) th a t I r v in a s k e d P h illip s to “b a c k o f f ” a t le a s t e ig h t tim e s s o th a t I r v in c o u ld c o m p le te h is “f

e d e r a l tr a f

f ic s to p ” a n d “f

e d e r a l D O T in s p e c tio n .” B e c a u s e w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t I r v in h a d a r g u a b le p r o b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s t P h illip s , w e r e v e r s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ityTo thee xtent th at Ph ill ipsargue s th at a c tual prob a blec a us eis re quire d toe sta

bli sh 2 qualified immunity

on the Fir st Amendment claim, wealso conc lude that Irvin had actual prob a blec a us ein a ny e vent. 4 t o I r v i n o n Ph i l l i p s ’ s Fi r s tA me n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. 2 A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, R EVER SED I N PA R T.