F I L E D U . S . C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T A P R I L 5 , 2 0 1 1 J O H N L E Y C L E R K [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 99 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 22 96 6- CV-UU AMERIC AN FEDERATION O F LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, FLORIDA ALLIANCE OF RETIRED AMERICANS, THEA L EE, DEBORAH DION, MIC HAEL CAVANAUGH, STEWART ACUFF, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us CITY OF MIAM I, FL, JOHN TIMONEY, in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty, FRANK FERNANDEZ, in h is in di vi du al cap aci ty, THOMAS CANNON, inhi s in di vi du al cap aci ty, Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 5, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, KRAVITCH an d S ILER, Cir cu itJu dg es . * KRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg e: The Am eri can Fed erat io n o f Lab oran d C on gr es s o f In du st ria l Org an iz at io ns (AFL–C IO), th e Fl or id a All ia nc e o f Ret ire d Am eri can s (F LARA), an d s ev eral em

pl oyees o f th e AFL–C IO su edth e Ci ty of Mi am i an d s ev eral of i ts po li ce o ffi cers un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th e p la in ti ffs so ug htda m ag es , as wel l as de cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. The d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s l ack ed st an di ng to pu rs ue th ei r cl ai m s fo r de cl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f an d d is m is se d th os e cl ai m s, as well as c la im s t ha t the de fen da nt s h advi ol at edth ei r Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . The d is tri ctco urt l at er re nd eredsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s o n t he rem ai ni ng cla im s. Th e p la in ti ffs ap pe al ed . After a th or ou gh rev ie w of the reco rdan d o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth e p la in ti ffs ha ve fai le d t o p res en t g enui ne is su es of m at eri al facton ess en ti al ele m en ts of the ir cl ai m s, tha t the ir c la im s fo r de cl arat ory an d i njunc ti ve rel ie f are m oo t, an d t ha t The Honor able Eug ene E . Siler, United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by * designation. 2th ei r cl ai m s fo r vi ol at io n o f th ei r Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts were p ro pe rly

di sm is se d. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. I. InNov em

be r 20 03 , Mia m i h os te d am eet in g o f m in is te rs , lea de rs , and di pl om at s wh o wer e n eg ot ia ti ng anag reem en t t o e st ab li sh th e Fre e Trad e Area o f th e Am eri cas (FTAA). A nu m be r of org an iz at io ns an d i nd iv idua ls als o c am e to Mi am i t o p ro te stth e FTAA. Am on g t he pro te st or s an d o rg an iz at io ns were the pl ai nt iff s i n t hi s ca se : the Am eri can Fed erat io n o f Lab oran d C on gr es s o f In du stria l Org an iz at io ns (AFL–C IO), th e Fl or id a All ia nc e o f Ret ire d Am eri can s (FLARA), an d s ev eral em pl oyees o f th e AFL–C IO: St ewartAcuf f, Mi ch ael Cav an au gh , Debo rah Dio n, an d Th ea Lee. To p ro te stth e FTAA, th e AFL–C IO pl an ne d anu m be r of ev en ts , ran gi ng fro m ga la s an d fo ru m s t o m arch es an d ra ll ie s. Th e AFL–C IO al so co nt act ed or ga ni zat io ns who were l ik ewis e o pp os edto th e FTAA to so li ci t the ir s up po rt a nd en co ur ag e th ei r pa rti ci pa ti on inth e AFL–C IO’s act iv it ie s i n M ia m i. Thr ou gh ou t th e p la nn in g, the AFL–C IO ne go ti at edwith t he City of M ia m i an d t he Mi am i Po li ce Dep art m en t (M PD) to sec ur e th e p ro pe r pe rm it s fo r it s ev en ts , to di sc us s po ss ib le rou te s fo r it s p la nn edm arch , andto en su re co op erat io n b etweenth e po li ce an d p ro te st or s. Onth is las t p oi nt , th e AFL–C IO rep eat ed ly affirm edit s 3co m

m it m en t t o c on du ctlawf

ul an d p eace fu l d em on st rat io ns . Butbo thth e AFL–C IO an d t he MPD rec og ni zedth atso m e p ro te st or s m ig htno t b e as co m m it te d t o l awfu l, p eace fu l p ro te st s as th e AFL–C IO. The AFL– CIO rea ch ed ou t t o s om e g ro up s wh o wer e p la nn in g a ct s o f ci vi l d is ob ed ie nc e an d a sk edth em no t t o d is ruptth e AFL–C IO’s pl an ne d a ct iv it ie s. Th e p ol ic e p rep aredas we ll , by en li st in g t he aidof o th er l aw-en fo rcem en t ag en ci es inSo ut h F lo rid a an d t rai ni ng to de al with l arg e cro wds of p ro te st or s. Bu t d es pi te ex te ns iv e p la nn in g b y th e Ci ty of Mi am i, the MPD, th e AFL–C IO, FLARA, andm an y ot he r pr ot es to rs , whatm os t ha d h op edwou ldbe pe acef ul pro te st s d idno t turn o utas p la nn ed . Thu rs da y , Nov em

be r 20 , 20 03 , was ex pe ct edto be th e h ig h p oi ntof t he AFL–C IO’s pro te st s ag ai ns t the FTAA bu t i t qui ck ly turn edin to th e p ro te st ’s na di r. The o rg an iz at io n’s ra ll y at t he Bayfron t Pa rkAm ph it he at er was frau gh t with p ro bl em s. Th e AFL–C IO ha d c oo rd in at edwith F LARA to bu s i n anu m be r of ret ire d F lo rid ians to att en d t he ral ly. Becaus e th e p ol ic e d iv ert edtra ffi c o n Bi sc ayne Bo ul ev ard , m an y of t he bu sl oa ds of r et ire es were dro pp edoff far fr om th e am ph it he at er. A few o th er b us es were d ire ct edby the Flo rid a Hig hway Patro l to tu rnaro un d and , as ares ul t, n ev er arr iv ed . The AFL– CIO al so he lda pr ot es t m arch onThu rs da y . Butth e m arch di d n otfol lo w th e p la nn edrou te ; i t d idno t pa ss th e h ot el wher e th e m in is te rs were co nv en ed . 4Bu t the se in ci de nt s wer e rel at iv el y m il d c om

pa redwith s om e o f th e o th er m is haps th atda y . For e xa m pl e, po li ce o ffi cers dre w gu ns on AFL–C IO em pl oyees Deb or ahDio n a ndMi ch ael Cav an au gh , whi le th e two st affe rs were try in g t o l eav e th e am ph it he at er. Als o, a n um

be r of pro te st or s wer e co nf

in edinth e am

ph it he at er du rin g t he aft ern oo n wh il e p ol ic e, in ful l ri otge ar, m arch eddo wn Bi sc ayne Bo ul ev ardatt em

pt in g t o d is pe rs e a cro wd o f pr ot es to rs . Thea Lee , ano th er AFL–C IO em

pl oyee, was caug htup inth atcro wd an d s he was e xp os edto a pe pp er-b as edch em ic al irr it an t. As a re su ltof the se in ci de nt s, the pl ai nt iff s s ue d t he City

of M ia mi an d se ve ral m em

be rs of t he MPD, J oh n Ti m on ey , th enth e ch ie f of po li ce, Frank Fern an de z, th ena de pu ty chi ef o f po li ce, an d Th om as Can no n, the n apo li ce m ajor . The p la in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t the de fen da nt s d ep riv edth em of t he ir co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s u nd er co lo r of st at e law. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th e p la in ti ffs su rm is e th atth es e d ep riv at io ns oc cu rredbe cau se th e Ci ty of Mi am i was ho st il e to ward s the ir a nt i-F TAA vie wpo in t, an d s ou gh t t o que ll di ss en t o ve r th e p ro po sa l be cau se th e FTAA wou ldbe ne fitMi am i ec on om ic al ly. InCo un ts 1, 6 , and11 of t he co m pl ai nt , th e p la in ti ffs all eg e th atth e Ci ty of Mi am i ad op te d m

un ic ip al po li ci es th atdi rect ly caus edvi ol at io ns of t he ir F irs t, Fo urth , andFo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Sim il arl y , inCo un ts 3 an d 8 , th e 5pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d t ha t the Cit y

of M ia m i i s l iabl e b ecau se Tim on ey , an o ffi ci al po li cy m ak er, ad op te d m

un ic ip al po li ci es th atdi rect ly caus edvi ol at io ns of t he ir Fi rs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . In Co un t 5 , th e p la in ti ffs see k t o h ol d t he Ci ty of Mi am i l iabl e fo r fai li ng to tra in it s emplo y ees , whi chcau se d t he pl ai nt iff s’ Fi rs t, Fo urth , andFo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts to be vi ol at ed . In Co un t 1 0, the pl ai nt iff s al le ge th atTim on ey , Fern an de z, an d C an no n c on sp ire d t og ethe r to vi ol at e th ei r ci vi l ri gh ts . In Co un ts 12 an d 1 3, the pl ai nt iff s co nt en d t ha t Ti m on ey , Fern an de z, an d C an no n fa il edto in te rv en e to pre ve ntvi ol at io ns of t he ir F irs t an d Fo urthAm en dm en t ri gh ts . In Co un t 1 5, Th ea Lee a ll eg es th atTim on ey , Fern an de z, an d C an no n o rd eredth ei r subo rd in at es to actina m an ne r th atvi ol at ed he r Fo urthAm en dm en t ri gh ts . The d is tri ctco urt re nd eredsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof t he de fen da nt s o n t he se cla im s. InCo un t 1 6, the pl ai nt iff s s ou gh t t o h ol d Ti m on ey , Fern an de z, an d C an no n li ab le forvi ol at in g t he ir F ou rte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Thatco un t was di sm is se d by the di st ric t co urt b ecau se itco nc lu de d tha t the off ic ers were en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y . The AFL– CIO al so so ug htde cl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t the Cit y

of M ia m i t o p rev en t fu tu re u se of t he op erat io na l p la n d ev el op ed by the MPD fo r th e FTAA m eet in g. Th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t ha t co un t be cau se itco nc lu de d t ha t the AFL–C IO la ck edst an di ng . 6The pl ai nt iff s’ is su es on ap pe al fal l i nt o t wo b ro adcat eg or ie s. Th e fi rs t cat eg ory co nc ern s wh ethe r su m

m ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te be cau se th ere were g enui ne is su es of m at eri al fact . The s eco ndis whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erred in gra nt in g t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s. Be cau se anis su e wit hi n t he sec on d cat eg ory pre se nt s a ju ris di ct io na l que st io n, we ad dr es s i t an d t he ot he r is su es reg ard in g t he m ot io n t o d is m is s fi rs t. We the n turn t o the pl ai nt iff s’ rem ai ni ng cl ai m s t o d et erm in e whe th er s umm ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te . II. W e rev ie w an o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o d is mis s de no vo . Amnes tyInt ’l, USA v. Ba tt le , 55 9 F .3d11 70 , 11 76 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Andwe acce ptas t ru e al l o f th e p la in ti ffs ’ well -p le ad edall eg at io ns . Id. A. Cla ims fo r declar at or y a nd in ju nc ti ve r el ie

f Init s co m pl ai nt , th e AFL–C IO as ke d fo r de cl arat ory an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t the Cit y

of M ia m i an d the MPD t o p rev en t the m fro m us in g the op erat io na l pl anth atwas e m

pl oyed dur in g t he FTAA m eet in g. To supp ort i ts cla im for in jun ct iv e rel ie f, th e AFL–C IO al le ge d t ha t i t co nt inue s t o b e p res en t an d e xp res s i ts vi ews inco nn ect io n wi th m eet in gs an d fo ru m s s im il ar t o t he FTAA su m m itth atwil l o ccu r th ro ug ho utth e Uni te d S ta te s, an d wh ic h a re l ik el y to recu r in So ut h F lo rid a; an d [t he ] AFL–C IO expe ct s an d i nt en ds to sp on so r[,] part ic ip at e[, o r bo th ] inpubl ic as se m bl ie s an d d em on st rat io ns inSo ut h F lo rid a an d e ls ewh ere dur in g t he m on th s l ead in g up t o t he Nov em be r 20 08 ele ct io ns . 7The di st ric t co urt g ran te d the de fen dant s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s t he AFL–C IO’s cla im

fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f, be cau se itco nc lu de d t ha t the AFL–C IO la ck edst an di ng as i t ha d fa il edto all eg e a rea l an d i m m ed ia te th reatof f

utur e in jury. Se e Ele nd

v. Bas ha m , 47 1 F .3d11 99 , 12 07 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [A] pray er fo r in jun ct iv e an d de cl arat ory

rel ie f requi res anass es sm en t . . . of wh ethe r th e p la in ti ff h as su ffi ci en tl y

sh owna real an d i m

m ed ia te th reatof f

utur e h arm .”). Befo re we ca n co ns id er wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredindi sm is si ng th is cla im , we m us t fi rs t de te rm in e whe th er we h av e subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on .

“ On ev ery writof e rro r or ap pe al , th e fi rs t an d fu nd am en ta l que st io n i s t ha t of juri sd ic ti on . . . .” Gre at S. Fir e Pro of

Hot el Co . v. Jon es , 17 7 U.S. 4 49 , 45 3 (1 90 0) . Arti cl e III o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on li mit s t he jud ic ia l p owe r, an d c on se qu en tl y ou r juri sd ic ti on , to cas es an d c on tro ve rs ie s. On e requi rem en t fo r juri sd ic ti on is th atanactua l co nt ro ve rs y ex is t thr ou gh ou t the en ti re l it ig at io n. Ari zo na ns fo r Off ic ia l En gl is h v . Ari

zo na , 52 0 U.S. 4 3, 6 7 (1 99 7) . Alth ou gh ne it he r th e ap pe ll an ts no r th e ap pe ll ees rai se d t he is su e o f m oo tn es s i n t he ir b rie fs , we are no ne th el es s o bl ig at edto co ns id er the m at te r. Id. at73 . In o rd er t o d et erm in e whe th er the co nt ro ve rs y

is m oo t, we n eedon ly to co ns id er the pl ai nt iff s’ co m pl ai nt , as t hi s i s n ota factua l ch al le ng e to subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on . Cf . La wr en ce v. Du nb ar , 91 9 F .2d15 25 , 15 29 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). 8W e co nc lu de th atth e AFL–C IO’s reque stfor de cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f no lo ng er p res en ts a jus ti ci ab le co nt ro ve rs y . The o nl y sp eci fic all eg at io n t he AFL–C IO m ad e ab ou t i ts futur e-p ro te stpl an s i nv ol ve d d em on strat io ns th atit pl an ne d t o h ol d i n t he m on th s l ead in g up t o t he Nov em be r 20 08 ele ct io ns . But th os e el ect io ns ha ve si nc e p as se d, an d t he AFL–C IO di d n otall eg e whe n a nd whe re i t i nt en de d t o e ng ag e in act iv it ie s tha t co ul d s ub ject i t t o t he FTAA op erat io na l p la n b ey on d No ve m be r 20 08 . Becau se Arti cl e III l im it s o ur juri sd ic ti on to “ actua l, on go in g co nt ro ve rs ie s” an d t hi s co nt ro ve rs y is no lo ng er on go in g, we ar e wit ho utjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby gran ti ng th e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s t he AFL–C IO’s cl ai m s fo r de cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. Hon ig v. Doe , 48 4 U.S. 3 05 , 31 7 (1 98 8) (em

ph as is ad de d) . B. Cou nt 16 : Th e in di vi du al

pl ai nt if fs ’ § 1 98 3 c la im f

or vio la ti on of

Fou rt een th Amend men t r ight

s Inad di ti on to di sm is si ng th e AFL–C IO’s cla im forde cl arat ory

an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f, th e d is tri ctco urt al so di sm is se d C ou nt16 , th e p la in ti ffs ’ § 1 98 3 cl ai m forvi ol at io n o f th ei r Fo urte en thAm en dm en t ri gh ts , bec au se itco nc lu de d th atth e in di vi du al de fen da nt s wer e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . A go ve rn m en t of fic ia l i s en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y if, und er the fact s as all eg ed , hi s co nduc t di d n otvi ol at e a cl earl y

est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh t o f whi cha 9reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own . Amnes tyInt ’l, 55 9 F .3dat 1 18 1. Th e

di sm is sa l was pre m is edon th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e fac ts , as a ll eg ed , di d n otest ab li sh th atth e d efen da nt s v io la te d the pl ai nt iff s’ Fou rte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . The Fo urte en th Am en dm en t p ro te ct s t wo ty pe of due pro ces s: subs ta nt iv e an d p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s. Itis th ro ug h s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s t ha t m an y of t he rig ht s enum erat edinth e Co ns ti tu ti on ha ve be enap pl ie d t o t he st at es . Se e McDo na ld

v. Cit y o f Ch ic ag o , 13 0 S . Ct. 3 02 0, 3 09 3 (2 01 0) (St ev en s, J ., di ss en ti ng ). Bu t s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s d oe s s ti ll m or e, as itals o p ro hi bi ts go ve rn m en ta l ac ti on th at“ sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce.” Cn ty . of Sa cr ame nt o v . Lewis , 52 3 U.S. 8 33 , 84 6– 47 (19 98 ). Init s qua li fie d- imm

un it y an al y si s, the di st ric t co urt u se d t he “ sh oc k the co ns ci en ce” s ta nd ardto de te rm in e whe th er the de fen da nt s’ all eg edco nduc t vi ol at edth e p la in ti ffs ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Mo stof t he act io ns th e p la in ti ffs al le ge , ho wev er, are sp eci fic al ly pro te ct edby am en dm en ts ot he r th anth e Fo urte en th , whi chis th e m ech an is m th ataffo rd s t he pl ai nt iff

s t he pro te ct io n o f 1 th os e o th er am en dm en ts ag ai ns t the st at es . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d This count of the plaintiffs’ complaint actua lly contains seve ral diff

ere nt claims, but the 1 problem with the district court’ s qualified-immunity analysis is common t o all of the c laims in Count 16. 10ha ve co nduc te d aqu al ifi ed -imm un it y an al y si s u si ng th os e am en dm en ts as i ts gu id e. Lewis , 52 3 U.S. at84 2 (“ Whe re a p art ic ul ar Am en dm en t p ro vi de s an ex pl ic ittex tu al so ur ce o f co ns ti tu ti on al pro te ct io n a ga in sta pa rti cu la r so rt o f go ve rn m en t b eh av io r, th atAm en dm en t, n otth e m or e g en eral iz edno ti on of subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s, m us t b e th e g ui de foran al yzi ng th es e cl ai m s.”) (qu ot in g Alb ri gh t v. Ol iv er , 51 0 U.S. 2 66 , 27 3 (1 99 4) (Reh nqui st , C.J.)) ; se e a ls o Gra ha m v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 3 86 , 39 5 (1 98 9) . Butth e d is tri ctco urt’s erro r was ha rm le ss : th e p la in ti ffs m ad e (n earl y ) id en ti cal cla im s u nd er the sp eci fic am en dm en ts th at ap pl ie d t o t he all eg edco nduc t, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt d idno t d is m is s. C. Co un t 1 6: Th e o rg an iz at io na l p la in ti ff s’§ 1 98 3 c la im f

or vio la ti on of Fou rt een th Amend

men t r ight

s InCo un t 1 6, the AFL–C IO an d F LARA all eg e th atth e in di vi du al de fen da nt s d ep riv edth em of p ro pe rty with ou t due pro ces s, i n v io la ti onof t he Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, b y : (1 ) ha ras si ng an d a ss au lt in g p eo pl e se ek in g t o e nt er th e Bayfron t Am

ph it he at er, wh ic h h adbe enren te d b y th e AFL–C IO; (2 ) in te rfer in g wi th acce ss to th e Bayfron t Am ph it he at er b y

th e AFL–C IO’s ou ts id e ve nd or s; (3) bl oc ki ng an d d iv ert in g b us es ch art eredby the AFL–C IO an d F LARA; an d (4 ) se iz in g andbl oc ki ng acce ss to ot he r pr op erty of t he AFL–C IO an d FLARA. As wi th th e in di vi du al pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s, the di st ric t co urt u se d t he 11Fo urte en th Am en dm en t’s s ho ck -th e-co ns ci en ce s ta nd ardto de te rm in e whe th er the

de fen da nt s wer e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edim m un it y fro m th e AFL–C IO an d F LARA’ s cl ai m s. Bu t a c la im

forde pr iv at io n o f pr op erty witho utdu e p ro ces s u nd er the Fo urte en th Am en dm en t i s n oton e fo r vi ol at io n o f subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s; rathe r itis a cl ai m

forvi ol at io n o f pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s. W ar re n v . Cra wf

or d , 92 7 F.2 d 5 59 , 56 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (ci ti ng Bd. o f Reg en ts of

Stat e Co ll eg es v. Roth , 40 8 U.S. 5 64 , 56 9 (1 97 2) ); cf . Si lv a v . Biel uc h , 35 1 F .3d10 45 , 10 47 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); McKi nn ey v. Pa te , 20 F.3d15 50 , 15 56 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) ( en ba nc ) (“ [A]reas in whi chsubs ta nt iv e ri gh ts are cr eat edon ly by st at e la w . . . are n otsubjec t t o subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s p ro te ct io n u nd er the Due P ro ces s C laus e b ecau se ‘sub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s ri gh ts are cr eat edon ly by th e Co ns ti tu ti on .’ ”) (quo ti ng Reg en ts of

Uni v. of Mich . v. Ewin g , 47 4 U.S. 2 14 , 22 9 (1 98 5) (Po well , J., co nc urrin g) ). As the Supr em e Co urt h as sai d: “ Pro cedur al du e p ro ces s ru le s ar e n otm ean t to pro te ctpe rs on s fr om

th e d ep riv at io n, b utfro m th e m is ta ke n o r un

jus ti fie d de pr iv at io n o f li fe, l ib erty , or p ro pe rty.” Ca re y v. Pip hu s , 43 5 U.S. 2 47 , 25 9 (1 97 8) . “ Inth is cir cu it , a § 1 98 3 c la im all eg in g ade ni al of p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s requi res pro of

of t hr ee el em en ts : (1 ) a d ep riv at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al ly-pro te ct ed li be rty or p ro pe rty int eres t; (2) st at e act io n; an d (3 ) co ns ti tu ti on al ly-in ad equa te 12pr oc es s.” Arr in gt on v. Helms , 43 8 F .3d13 36 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng

Gra yd en v. Rho des , 34 5 F .3d12 25 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). Nowh ere i n t he co m pl ai ntdo es th e AFL–C IO orFLARA all eg e h ow the y were d en ie d due pr oc es s. Altho ug h n ot ic e p le ad in g d oe s n otrequi re a p la in ti ff t o s pe ci fic al ly ple ad ev ery el em en t o f hi s caus e o f act io n, a c om pl ai ntm us t s ti ll co nt ai n e no ug h in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g t he m at eri al ele m en ts of acau se of a ct io n t o s up po rt reco ve ry un de r so m e “ vi ab le leg al th eo ry .” Roe v . Awar e W oma n Ctr . fo r C

ho ic e, In c. , 25 3 F .3d67 8, 6 83 –8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The p la in ti ffs ha ve m ad e co nc lu so ry st at em en ts th atth ey

were d ep riv edof p ro pe rty with ou t due pro ces s, b utth is is no t ev ena “ fo rm

ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n.” Bell Atl . Cor p. v. Two mbl

y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5 (2 00 7) . Nothi ng inth e co m pl ai nt —d ire ct ly, in fere nt ia ll y , or o th erwi se —s ay s h ow Fl or id a’s pr oc edur es for reco ve rin g wro ng fu ll y

tak enpro pe rty vio la te d due pro ces s, o r th atth e p la in ti ffs ev en at te m pt edto us e th os e p ro cedur es . Nor d o t he pl ai nt iff s al le ge th atth e de fen da nt s’ pre -d ep riv at io n p ro cedur es , if the y were ev enrequi red , were s om eh ow in ad equa te . Giv enth e ab se nc e o f an y in fo rm at io n i n t he co m

pl ai ntab ou t a m at eri al ele m en t o f th ei r cl ai m , th e p la in ti ffs ha ve fai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be grant ed . W e n ow turn t o t he pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en ts ab ou t 13su m

m ary jud gm en t. III. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s o rd er ren de rin g s umm ary jud gm en t de no vo . Th oma s v. C

oo pe r Li gh ti ng , Inc . , 50 6 F .3d13 61 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A party is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t i f, aft er an ad equa te ti m e fo r di sc ov ery ha s pa ss ed , itcande m on st rat e th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts an d i t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a); Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Ca tr et t , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2 (1 98 6) . No g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts if a pa rty has fai le d t o “ m ak e a s ho win g s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh th e ex is te nc e o f an el em en t . . . onwhi chth atpa rty will be ar the bu rd enof p ro of at t ria l.” Cel ot ex , 47 7 U.S. at32 2. The de fen da nt s m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t o n t he gro un d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s h adfai le d t o a dduc e ev id en ce es tabl is hi ng anele m en t es se nt ia l t o e ach of th ei r § 1 98 3 c la im s. Whenth ere i s a “ co m pl et e fai lu re o f pr oo f co nc ern in g a n es se nt ia l el em en t o n t he no nm ov in g p arty ’s cas e,” the m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t s ho ul d b e g ran te d. Id. at 3 23 . W e n ow ex am in e eac h o f th e p la in ti ffs ’ § 1 98 3 c la im s t o d et erm in e whe th er th e p la in ti ffs bro ug htforwardev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto crea te ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factth atsh ou ldha ve pre cl ud edth e d is tri ctco urt fr om ren de rin g s umm ary 14jud gm en t o n b eh al f of th e d efen da nt s. A. Cla ims ag ai ns t the Cit y o f Mi ami i. The Para de Ordi nanc e, The Mu tu al AidAgre em en t, an d t he Securit y Pla n A m un ic ip al ity

m ay on ly be h el d l iabl e und er § 19 83 when on e o f it s po li ci es cau se s a c on st itut io na l i nju ry . Mon el l v. Dep ’t o f S oc ia l S ervs . , 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 6 94 (19 78 ). A cou rt’s fi rs t i nqui ry inass es si ng m

un ic ip al li ab il ity

is whet he r th ere i s a d ire ctcau sa l l in k b etweena m un ic ip al po li cy

an d t he all eg ed co ns ti tu ti on al in

jury. Ci tyof

Ca nt on v. Har ris , 48 9 U.S. 3 78 , 38 5 (1 98 9) . “ It i s no t s uf fic ie ntfora go ve rn m en t b od y ’s po li cy to be tan ge nt ia ll y

rel at edto a co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n.” Cu es ta v. Sc h. Bd. of Mia mi-Da de Co . , 28 5 F .3d96 2, 96 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 2) . The p ol ic y m us t b e th e “ m ov in g fo rce” be hi ndth e co ns ti tu ti on al in

jury. Id. (qu ot in g Gilmer e v. Ci tyof Atlan ta , 73 7 F .2d89 4, 9 01 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) ). Whe n am un ic ip al po li cy

it se lf v io la te s fe de ral law, o r di rect s a m un ic ip al it y

to do so , res ol vi ng “ is su es of f au ltan d c au sa ti on is strai gh tfo rward .” Bd. o f Cn ty . Comm’r

s v. Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. 3 97 , 40 4 (1 99 7) . Butwhen th atis no t th e cas e, de te rm in in g c au sa ti on is m or e d iff ic ul t. Id. at40 6. If afaci al ly-lawfu l m un ic ip al act io n i s al le ge d t o h av e cau se d am un ic ip al em

pl oyee to vi ol at e a pl ai nt iff’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts , th e p la in ti ff m us t es tabl is h “ th atth e m

un ic ip al act io n was tak enwith ‘de li be rat e in di ffer en ce’ as t o i ts kn own or o bv io us 15co ns eque nc es .” Id. at40 7 (quo ti ng Ci tyof Ca nt on , 48 9 U.S. at38 8) . As no ne of th e p ol ic ie s i n que st io n h ere a re fa ci al ly unc on st itut io na l, thi s p res en ts th e pl ai nt iff s wi th a di ffi cu lttas k. Sh ortl y be fo re the FTAA su m

m it , th e Mi am i Ci ty Comm is si on ad op te d a n or di na nc e th atres tri ct edwhatm at eri al s co ul d b e carrie d dur in g p ro te st s an d pa rad es . The Ci ty also co nt act edot he r la w-en fo rcem en t ag en ci es inSo ut h F lo rid a an d e nt eredin to m

utua l ai d a gr eem en ts with m an y of t he m to sec ur e th os e or ga ni zat io ns ’ as si st an ce dur in g t he FTAA su m m it . The ag reem en ts als o re qu ire d th atpa rti ci pa ti ng law- en fo rcem en t ag en ci es ab id e b y un ifo rm rul es of e ng ag em en t du rin g t he FTAA su m

m it . InCo un ts 1, 6 , and11 , th e p la in ti ffs co nt en d tha t the se m un ic ip al po li ci es , al on g wi th un writ te n c om po ne nt s o f th e MPD’s s ecurity pl an , di rect ly caus edth ei r Fi rs t, Fo urth , andFo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts to be vi ol at ed . In Co un t 3 an d 8 , th e p la in ti ffs all eg e th atTim on ey , as a n o ffi ci al po li cy m ak er fo r th e Ci ty, ad op te d th e Mu tu al AidAgre em en t an d S ecu rit y Pla n, an d t he n o rd eredth e act s t ha t de pr iv edth e p la in ti ffs of t he ir F irs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . The d is tri ct co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s h adfai le d t o p ro ffer

an y ev id en ce tha t ei th er th os e p ol ic ie s ad op te d b y th e Ci ty or th os e im

pl em en te d b y

Tim on ey cau se d t he pl ai nt iff s’ con st itut io na l i nju rie s. AFL–C IO v. Ci tyof

Mia mi , 65 0 F . Sup p. 2 d 1612 58 , 12 68 –6 9, 1 27 1– 72 (S.D. Fla . 20 09 ). The p la in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t the di st ric t

co urt erredby vie win g e ach po li cy inis ol at io n, wh erea s, h adth e d is tri ctco urt vi ewedth e p ol ic ie s t og ethe r itwou ldha ve be encle ar tha t a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is te d abo utwhet he r th e p ol ic ie s caus edth ei r co ns ti tu ti on al in juri es . The de fen da nt s re sp on d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s h av e fai le d t o b rin g fo rwardan y ev id en ce es tabl is hi ng th atth atth e Ci ty’ s m un ic ip al po li ci es cau se d t he ir co ns ti tu ti on al in

juri es . Reg ard in g t he co un ts ag ai ns t the Cit y of M ia m i, we co nc lu de th atwhet he r th e m un ic ip al po li ci es are v ie wedsep arat el y or t og ethe r, th e p la in ti ffs ha ve fai le d to ad du ce an y

ev id en ce tha t tho se po li ci es cau se d t he ir c on st itut io na l i njurie s an d th us su m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te . Firs t, we n ot e th atno ne of t he po li ci es are f aci al ly unc on st itut io na l. Acco rd in gl y , to pre va il on th ei r cl ai m s, the pl ai nt iff s wou ldha ve to pro ve th atCit y of M ia m i was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t t o t he kn own orob vi ou s co ns eque nc es of i ts po li ci es . Se e Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. at40 7; se e a ls o Ja mes v. Har ris C

nt y. , 57 7 F .3d61 2, 6 17 (5t h C ir. 2 00 9) ; Ovia tt v. Pear ce , 95 4 F.2 d 1 47 0, 1 47 7– 78 (9t h C ir. 1 99 2) . The p la in ti ffs ha ve fai le d t o p ro fferan y ev id en ce tha t the Cit y

of M ia m i kne w it s p ol ic ie s wo ul d re su ltinco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns . Nor h av e th ey bro ug htforwardev id en ce tha t i t was ob vi ou s s uc h vi ol at io ns wou ldoc cu r. 17Wha t ev id en ce the re i s s ug ge st s t ha t the City was s en si ti ve to th e p ro te st or s’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Fo r ex am pl e, th e Ci ty Commis si on ers pa tt ern edth e p arad e or di na nc e aft er o ne th atha d s us ta in eda co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e. The C it y als o am en de d t he pa rad e o rd in an ce t o a cco m m od at e so m e p ro te st or s— a g ro up of art is ts an d p up pe te ers —wh o fe aredth atth ey co ul d b e p ro se cu te d fo r vi ol at in g t he or di na nc e. The pl ai nt iff

s h av e al so fai le d t o p ro vi de any ev id en ce s ug ge st in g t ha t the re were u nwr it te n p ol ic ie s i n the Cit y ’s sec ur it y pl anto qu el l d is se nt in g v ie ws. Fi na ll y , whi le itis tru e th atth e FTAA tra in in g s li de sh ow cl as si fie s p ro te st or s acco rd in g t o t he ir i de ol og y an d p erce iv edpo te nt ia l fo r vi ol en ce, the pl ai nt iff s h av e fai le d t o a dduc e an y

ev id en ce tha t the sl id e sh ow was ge ne rat edby an o ffi ci al po li cy m ak er, wh ic h m ean s t he y ha ve no t ad du cedan y

ev id en ce tha t the sl id e sh ow re pr es en te d am

un ic ip al po li cy . Accor di ng ly, th e sl id e sh ow ca nn otbe th e ba si s fo r m

un ic ip al li ab il it y . Co op er v. Dil lo n , 40 3 F .3d12 08 , 12 21 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e al so co nc lu de th atth e su m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te forCo un ts 3 an d 8 . All o f th e p ol ic ie s ad op te d b y Tim on ey were fa ci al ly lawfu l. An d t he pl ai nt iff s h av e fai le d t o p ro du ce an y ev id en ce tha t Ti m on ey

ad op te d t ho se po li ci es

18with d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t he factth ey were ce rta in to cau se co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s t o b e v io la te d. Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. at40 7. ii . Fail ur e to Train or S up erv is e A m un ic ip al ity

canals o b e h el d l iabl e und er § 19 83 whenit s emplo y ees cau se a co ns ti tu ti on al in

jury as a res ul t o f th e m

un ic ip al it y ’s po li cy - orcu st om ba se d fa il ur e to ad equa te ly trai n o r supe rv is e it s emplo y ees . Gold v . Cit y o f Mia mi , 15 1 F .3d13 46 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). But “ th e in ad equa cy of p ol ic e tra in in g m ay

serve as t he ba si s fo r § 19 83 li ab il it y on ly whe re the fai lu re t o t rai n am ou nt s t o d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t he rig ht s o f pe rs on s wi th who m th e p ol ic e co m e in to co nt act .” Ci tyof Ca nt on , 48 9 U.S. at38 8. To est ab li sh a m un ic ip al it y ’s “ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce,” apl ai nt iff m us t p utforwardso m e ev id en ce tha t the m

un ic ip al it y

was a ware o f th e n eedto tra in or s up erv is e it s em pl oyees i n apa rti cu la r are a. Gold , 15 1 F .3dat 1 35 0– 51 . Est ab li sh in g n ot ic e o f a n eedto tra in or s up erv is e is di ffi cu lt . A pla in ti ff m ay de m on st rat e n ot ic e b y

sh owi ng a “ wid es pr eadpa tt ernof p rio r ab us e” o r ev en a si ng le earl ie r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Gold , 15 1 F .3dat 1 35 1. Bu t a p la in ti ff m us t al so de m on st rat e th atco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns were l ik el y to recu r wit ho ut tra in in g. Id. at 1 35 2 n .12 . In s om e cas es , th e n eedfortra in in g i s s o o bv io us th at de li be rat e in di ffer en ce can b e es tabl is he d e ve n wi th ou t an earl ie r vi ol at io n o r 19pa tt ernof abu se . Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. at40 9. St il l, i t m us t h av e b een ob vi ou s t ha t the m un ic ip al it y ’s fai lu re t o t rai n o r supe rv is e it s emplo y ees wou ldres ul t i n a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Id. In a dd it io n t o n ot ic e, a p la in ti ff m us t al so est ab li sh th atth e ci ty “m ad e a d el ib erat e ch oi ce” n otto tra in it s emplo y ees . Gold , 15 1 F .3d at13 50 . The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s fa il edto ad du ce an y

ev id en ce th atth e Ci ty w as on no ti ce tha t i t n eed edto im pr ov e p ol ic e tr ai ni ng on Fir stan d Fo urthAm en dm en t ri gh ts . AFL–C IO , 65 0 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 27 0. Th e p la in ti ffs co nt en d t wo re po rts est ab li shno ti ce. One , aut ho redby the City of M ia m i Ci vi li an In ve st ig at iv e Pan el (CIP) , says th attra in in g o n F irs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts was no ti ceab ly abs en t fr om th e MPD’s FTAA tr ai ni ng co ur se . Butto ho lda m un ic ip al it y

li ab le forfai lu re t o t rai n i t i s n oten ou ghto sh ow tha t the tra in in g was in ad equa te . Gold , 15 1 F .3dat 1 35 0. Th e ci ty m us t b e o n n ot ic e th atth e tr ai ni ng was in ad equa te as we ll . The CI P rep ort d oe s n otsay the cit y was o n n ot ic e th atit s Fi rs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t trai ni ng was d efi ci en t b efo re the FTAA de m on st rat io n a ndbe cau se th e rep ort i ts el f was writ te n a fte r th e FTAA su m m it , it can no t b e th e b as is forest ab li sh in g n ot ic e it se lf. Acc or di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t t o c on cl ud e th atth e CIP rep ort was no t ev id en ce tha t the Cit y of

20Mi am i was on no ti ce tha t i t n eed edto im pr ov e MPD’s trai ni ng on Fir stan d F ou rth Am en dm en t i ss ue s. The sec on d re po rt c it edby the pl ai nt iff s i s a M arch 20 03 let te r fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f Ju st ic e (DOJ) , whi chde ta il s t he pre li m in ary fin di ng s of a DOJ i nv es ti ga ti on reg ard in g u se of f or ce an d u se -o f-fo rce r ep orti ng by the MPD. Tha t l et te r is cert ai nl y ev id en ce tha t the Cit y

of M ia m i was on no ti ce tha t it s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic ie s an d t rai ni ng ne ed edim pr ov em en t. Bu t s umm ary jud gm en t was no ne th el es s ap pr op ria te . A pla in ti ff m us t p res en t ev id en ce n oton ly th atth e m

un ic ip al it y

was o n n ot ic e o f a n eedto tra in bu t al so th atth e m un ic ip al it y m ad e a ch oi ce n otto do so . Id. (“ To es tabl is h . . . ‘ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce,’ a pl ai nt iff m us t p res en t s om e ev id en ce tha t the m un ic ip al it y

kn ew of a ne edto tra in an d/ orsupe rv is e in a parti cu la r are a an d th e m un ic ip al it y

m ad e a d el ib erat e ch oi ce no t t o t ak e an y

act io n.” ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Becau se th e p la in ti ffs fai le d t o a dduc e ev id en ce o n t ha t s eco ndpo in t, s umm ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te . B. Cla ims ag ai ns t the in di vi du al de fe nd an ts i. Supe rv is ory

Liab il it y Cla im s Co un ts 12 an d 1 3 c on cern ev en ts th atoc curredat the am ph it he at er an d t he pl ai nt iff s’ all eg at io ns th atth e in di vi du al de fen dant s o rd eredth ei r subo rd in at es to actun la wfu ll y

—i n v io la ti on of the Fir stan d F ou rth Am en dm en ts —o r th atth ey 21kn ew th atth ei r subo rd in at es were ac ti ng un la wfu ll y an d the y fai le d t o i nt erv en e. Co un t 1 5 c on cern s p ol ic e act io n o n B is cayne Bo ul ev ardan d Lee ’s all eg at io n t ha t th e d efen da nt s o rd eredth ei r subo rd in at es to actun la wfu ll y —i n v io la ti onof t he Fo urthAm en dm en t— orkn ew th atth ei r subo rd in at es were ac ti ng un lawfu ll y an d fai le d t o i nt erv en e. A supe rv is orcanbe he ldli ab le forth e act io ns of h is subo rd in at es un de r § 1 98 3 i f he pe rs on al ly part ic ip at es inth e actth atcau se s t he co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o r whe re the re i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etweenhi s ac ti on s an d t he co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n t ha t h is subo rd in at es co m m it . Bra dd

y v. Fla . Dep’ t o

f La bo r a nd

Emp’t Se c. , 13 3 F .3d79 7, 8 02 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A cau sa l co nn ect io n can be est ab li sh edif asupe rv is orha s t he ab il it y to pre ve ntor s to p akn own co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n b y ex erci si ng hi s s up erv is ory au th or it y an d h e fai ls to do so . Kea ti ng

v. Cit y o f Mi ami , 59 8 F .3d75 3, 7 65 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s fa il edto bri ng forwardan y ev id en ce tha t the de fen da nt s d ire ct ly vio la te d t he pl ai nt iff s’ con st itut io na l ri gh ts or th atth ey di rect edth atth e p la in ti ffs ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s b e v io la te d. Th e d is tri ct co urt al so co nc lu de d tha t the pl ai nt iff s fa il edto ad du ce an y

ev id en ce tha t the de fen da nt s kne w th atth e p la in ti ffs ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e b ei ng vi ol at edan d fai le d t o i nt erv en e. W e ag ree. 22W e fi rs t turn t o t he pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s re ga rd in g t he am ph it he at er. Alt ho ug h th e am ph it he at er was lo ck eddo wn dur in g c ert ai n t im es on Nov em be r 20 , 20 03 , whi chcert ai nl y

im pl ic at edth e p la in ti ffs ’ Fi rs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts , th ey di d n otin tro du ce an y

ev id en ce tha t ei th er the in di vi du al de fen da nt s d ire ct edth at th e am ph it he at er b e lo ck eddo wn, o r th atth ey kn ew th atitha d b een an d fa il edto in te rv en e. The p la in ti ffs als o fa il edto ad du ce an y ev id en ce tha t the in di vi du al de fen da nt s kne w th atpo li ce o ffi cers were re st ric ti ng acce ss to th e am ph it he at er t o on ly obv io us ly uni on -aff il ia te d p ro te st or s o r kn ew th atpo li ce o ffi cers were d oi ng so an d fa il edto in te rv en e. Lik ewis e th ere i s t he re n o e vi de nc e th atth e d efen da nt po li ce o ffi cers di rect edth atguns be dra wn o n C av an au gh an d Di on or t ha t the y kn ew th atgu ns ha d b een dra wn o n C av an au gh an d Di on an d fa il edto in te rv en e. Last , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e d efen da nt s o rd eredth atAcuf f be pi nn eddo wn orth atth ey

kn ew th athe ha d b een an d fa il edto in te rv en e. W e n ow turn t o Lee ’s Fou rth Am en dm en t cl ai m s. Aft er the m archen de d, Lee returne d t o h er h ot el with AFL– CIO p res id en t J oh n S ween ey an d AFL– CIO se cret ary–tre as ur er Ri ch ardTrumka . After s eei ng Sween ey an d Tru m

kaoff at t he ho te l, Lee a nda co ll eag ue of h ers de ci de d t o wal k d own Bis cayne Bo ul ev ard . Afte r wal ki ng a co up le of b lo ck s s ou th fro m th e h ot el , Lee an d h er co ll eag ue no ti ceda li ne of p ol ic e o ffi cers m arch in g fr om th e n orth to ward s t he m . Lee als o 23rem em

be rs a li ne of p ol ic e o ffi cers ap pr oa ch in g fr om th e so ut h. No w un ab le to return t o h er h ot el , Lee an d h er co ll eag ue tu rn eddo wn a s id e streetto av oi d b ei ng en sn aredby the po li ce l in e. Bu t the po li ce o ffi cers tu rn edan d fo ll owe d Lee an d th e res t o f th e cro wd d ownth e si de st reet . Once o n t he si de street , th e p ol ic e sh ot pe pp er p el le ts at the cro wd. Lee was no t h itby any pe ll et s, b utsh e was ex po se d t o th ei r fu m es . Lee was ev en tu al ly abl e to tu rnon to an ot he r si de st reetan d h eadba ck no rth , andth eneas t t owardBis cayne Bo ul ev ard . On h er way ba ckto th e h ot el , Lee en co un te reda gr oup o f FLARA ret ire es who were re tu rn in g t o t he ir b us . Unf ortu na te ly, th e b us was p ark edon th e si de st reetth e p ol ic e h adjus t m arch ed do wn an d fr om

whi ch Lee h adjus t fl ed . Lee sp ok e wit h t he ret ire es whi le he r co ll eag ue cal le d t he bu s driv er an d a rran ge d fo r th em to be pi ck edup wher e th ey were. Whil e th ey

were wai ti ng forth e b us , two li ne s o f po li ce o ffi cers be ga n cl os in g i n o n Lee an d t he ret ire es . Fortun at el y , Lee an d h er co ll eag ue were ab le to sp eakwith t he po li ce o ffi cers , who all owe d t he bu s t o c om e an d p ic k up t he ret ire es an d fo r Lee t o g o o n h er way. Afterth at , Lee m ad e h er way ba ckto th e ho te l. The di stric t co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t the de fen da nt s wer e in vo lv edin or de rin g t he po li ce l in e to m archno rth on Bis cayne Bo ul ev ardas we ll as t he 24di sc ha rg e o f pe pp er p el le ts , bu t i t co nc lu de d t ha t Lee ha d n otsu ffer eda Fo urth

Am en dm en t i nju ry . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Lee ’s Fou rth Am en dm en t rig ht s wer e n otvi ol at edwhensh e was for cedoff Bis cayne Bo ul ev ardor wh ensh e was expo se d t o p ep pe r fu m es . Whi le we are l es s ce rta in th atLee’s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts were n otim pl ic at edwhen sh e was cau gh t b etweenth e two li ne s o f po li ce o ffi cers whi le wait in g wi th th e g ro up of r et ire es , we con cl ud e th at th ere a re o th er g ro un ds foraffi rm in g t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t as th ere i s n o ev id en ce the in di vi du al de fen da nt s o rd eredth atact io n o r kn ew th atitoc cu rredan d fai le d t o i nt erv en e. A sei zu re o ccu rs when ev er the po li ce “ res tra in [] the free do m of ape rs on to walkaway .” Bro wer

v. Cn ty . of

Iny o , 48 9 U.S 5 93 , 59 5 (1 98 9) (qu ot in g Ten ness ee v. Ga rn er , 47 1 U.S. 1 , 7 (1 98 5) ). Altho ug h Lee ’s freed om of m ov em en t was cert ai nl y

res tra in ed , sh e st il l h adth e ab il it y to , andin de eddi d, walkaway . Accor di ng ly, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t d es pi te th e de fen da nt s’ in vo lv em en t i n fo rci ng Lee d own th e si de st reet , sh e d idno t s uf fer a Fo urthAm en dm en t i nju ry . W e al so co nc lu de th atLee’s in ci de nt al ex po su re t o pe pp er fu m es fora sh ort p eri odof t im e is no t a s uf fic ie ntba si s t o s ta te an ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m

an d t hu s t he di st ric t co urt was co rrec t t o re nd er s umm ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . No li n v . Isb el l , 20 7 F .3d12 53 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) 25(s ta ti ng th e “ ap pl ic at io n o f de m in im is for ce, wit ho utm or e, wil l n otsupp ort a

cl ai m forex ces si ve for ce. . . .”). Last , we no te th atalt ho ug h Lee m ig htha ve be ensei zedwhen sh e was cau gh t b etweenth e two po li ce co rd on s al on g wi th th e FLARA ret ire es , sh e fai le d to pre se ntan y

ev id en ce tha t the de fen da nt s d ire ct edth atsei zu re o r kn ew th atit oc cu rredan d fa il edto in te rv en e. Acco rd in gl y , su m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te as t o t ha t cl ai m as we ll . ii . Civ il Co ns pi racy Clai m s To p rev ai l o n a§ 1 98 3 c on sp ira cy cla im a pl ai nt iff

m us t s ho w th atan ag reem en t b etweentwo or m or e p eo pl e (atlea ston e o f who m is a st at e act or ) to vi ol at e h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s re su lt edinanactua l v io la ti on of tho se rig ht s. Gri de r v. Cit

y o f Au bu rn , 61 8 F .3d12 40 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The ex is te nc e o f su cha co ns pi racy m ay

be pro ve d b y

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Id . (ci ti ng Burre ll v. Bd. o f Tr us te es of

Ga. Mil itar

y Co ll . , 97 0 F .2d78 5, 7 89 (11 th Cir . 19 92 )). Inth ei r m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, the de fen dant s ar gu edth atth e pl ai nt iff s h adno t ad du cedan y

ev id en ce tha t an ag reem en t b etweenth e al le ge d co ns pi rat or s ex is te d. Th e p la in ti ffs arg ue d t ha t the FTAA trai ni ng sl id e sh ow, the co or di na te d p ol ic e p la nn in g fo r th e FTAA su m m it , andco or di na te d p ol ic in g o n Nov em be r 20 , 20 03 were al l ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f th e ex is te nc e o f a 26co ns pi racy. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the y were n otan d we a gr ee. Altho ug h t he FTAA sl id e sh ow d oe s (r ou gh ly) clas si fy pro te st or s ac co rd in g to th ei r id eo lo gy andpe rcei ve d p ot en ti al for vi ol en ce, i t d oe s n otdi rect ly exp res s an y ag reem en t am on g t he de fen da nt s t o d ep riv e th e p la in ti ffs of t he ir co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Th e p la in ti ffs co ul d h av e d efea te d t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t i f itwere re as on ab le to in fer fr om th e sl id e sh ow an ag reem en t t o d ep riv e th e p la in ti ffs of the ir c on st itut io na l ri gh ts . Butitis no t reas on ab le to dra w su chanin fere nc e. To b eg in with, the pl ai nt iff s ar e cl as si fie d as no nv io le ntan d t he ir e ve nt s ar e d es cri be d a s “pe acef ul ga th eri ng s, p ro te st s, an d m arch es .” The s li de sh ow al so says th atth e p ol ic e’s m is si on was “ to en su re the ci vi l l ib ert ie s o f la w-ab id in g p ro te st or s an d d em on st rat or s ar e p ro te ct ed .” Even th ou gh th e sl id e sh ow re co gn iz edth e p ot en ti al so m e p ro te st or s h adforvi ol en ce, un io n- affi li at edde m on st rat or s, l ik e th e p la in ti ffs , were d es cri be d a s l aw-ab id in g, pe acef ul pro te st or s. Itwou ldbe far fr om reas on ab le to in fer tha t the sl id e sh ow i s ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f a co ns pi racy to d o t he op po si te of wh atitsays. Norcanth e p la nn in g a ndco op erat io n b y law- en fo rcem en t ag en ci es lea di ng up to th e FTAA su m

m itsupp ort an in fere nc e th atth ere was a co ns pi racy to v io la te th e p la in ti ffs ’ ci vi l ri gh ts . The o nl y in fere nc e th atcanbe dra wn fr om su cheffo rts is th atth e MPD fe ltitwas i ll -equi pp edto po li ce the FTAA su m m iton it s o wn. 27Lik ewis e, th e ev en ts of No ve m be r 20 , 20 03 , are n otev id en ce tha t the de fen da nt s ag reedto de pr iv e th e p la in ti ffs of t he ir c on st itut io na l ri gh ts . Andinord er t o pr ev ai l o n t he ir c la im

th e p la in ti ffs wou ldha ve to pro ve th at“ th e d efen da nt s ‘reach edanun de rs ta nd in g’ to vi ol at e th e [p la in ti ffs ’] co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Gri de r , 61 8 F .3dat 1 26 0 (quo ti ng Bai le y v. Bd. o f Cn ty . Comm’r

s , 95 6 F .2d11 12 , 11 22 (11 th Cir . 19 92 )). Alt ho ug h a n a gr eem en t m ay be in ferr ed“ fro m

th e rel at io ns hi p o f th e p art ie s, the ir o ve rt a ct s an d c on certof a ct io n, an d t he to ta li ty of th ei r co nduc t,” a s we d is cu ss edinev al ua ti ng th e p la in ti ffs ’ supe rv is ory li ab il it y cl ai m s, the pl ai nt iff

s h av e fai le d t o b rin g fo rwardan y ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt s’ co nduc t fr om

whi cha reas on ab le fact -fi nd er co ul d m ak e su chanin fere nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. S

ch wa rt z , 54 1 F .3d13 31 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Guer ra , 29 3 F .3d12 79 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 02 )). Afte r a rev ie w of t he bri efs , th e ev id en ce ci te d t o b y th e p art ie s, se e Fed . R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c)(1 )(A), an d t he en ti re re co rd , se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)( 3) , as wel l as th e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth e p la in ti ffs ha ve no t ad du cedan y ev id en ce tha t wo ul d c reat e g enui ne is su es of m at eri al factne ces sa ry to supp ort es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he ir c la im s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e di st ric t co urt. AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART. 28