[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13009

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-03449-MHC

MARTHE BIEN-AIME, 

R.N.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER CHRISTY VICE, 

LT. MARK TINKEY, 

OFFICER C. L. HYATT, 

OFFICER SHAWN HUMPHREYS, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 13, 2015)

Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before TJOLAT, WILSON, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Marthe Bien-Aime is a registered nurse who would not let City of 

Lawrenceville Police Officers enter the mental health facility where she was 

working as a charge nurse without first obtaining permission from her supervisor. 

The officers explained to Bien-Aime that they had a warrant to arrest a patient 

accused of sexually assaulting another patient. Bien-Aime informed the officers 

that she had a responsibility to protect her patients, and a struggle ensued resulting 

in her arrest for obstruction, although she later pled guilty to a reduced charge of 

disorderly conduct. Bien-Aime then brought this action against Officers Vice, 

Tinkey, Hyatt and Humphreys, asserting a constitutional claim under 28 U.S.C. §

1983. Bien-Aime alleged in her complaint that the officers used excessive force in 

conducting her arrest including throwing her to the floor, handcuffing her tightly 

and then tasing her while handcuffed. The district court granted summary 

judgment to all four officers and Bien-Aime appeals.

In Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014), the Supreme Court emphasized 

the importance of viewing the evidence and drawing factual inferences in favor of 

the nonmovant when the district court considers a motion for summary judgment. 

Id. at 1865. On de novo review, we are also obligated to view all evidence and 

factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. If 

Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P 56(a).

On appeal, Bien-Aime argues that the district court failed to construe the 

evidence in the light most favorable to her, and that reasonable jurors could find 

that there was either no need for the officers to use any force at all, or alternatively, 

that the level of force they used was excessive under the circumstances.

Contrary to Bien-Aime’s argument, the district court viewed the evidence 

presented by the parties in the light most favorable to Bien-Aime with regard to the 

central facts in the case and drew all justifiable inferences in her favor. The facts 

in the light most favorable to Bien-Aime show that she resisted the officers’ 

attempts to execute a valid arrest warrant. The officers used no more force than

was necessary in response to her repeated refusal to comply with their lawful 

commands. The amount of force they used to overcome her resistance was not 

excessive. 

Furthermore, Bien-Aime is unable to meet her burden of proving that the 

officers violated clearly established law. The officers are entitled to qualified 

immunity from liability in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not 

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 

[officer] would have known.” Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 

2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An officer will be entitled to qualified 

Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

immunity if his actions were objectively reasonable, that is if an objectively 

reasonable officer in the same situation could have believed that the force used was 

not excessive.” Id. In the Fourth Amendment context, we determine whether 

excessive force was used by asking “whether a reasonable officer would believe 

that [the] level of force [was] necessary in the situation at hand.” Lee v. Ferraro, 

284 F.3d 1188, 1197 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, 

considering Bien-Aime’s repeated refusal to comply with the officers’ directive, 

and the de minimus force used which caused no lasting harm, we cannot say that 

the officers violated any clearly established law. In this Circuit, “we recognize that 

the typical arrest involves some force and injury.” Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 

1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002).

Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bien-Aime

and carefully evaluating the circumstances of this case, we agree with the district 

courts that the force used by the officers during their arrest of Bien-Aime did not 

violate the Constitution.

We affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 4 of 4