F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 1 6, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble David M. Ebe l, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ 06- 1423 1

____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00193 -CV -RL V- 4 EDWARD J. REESE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us J O S H HE R B ER T, i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i ty, D A NN Y EL LI S , i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, J A S O N GE D D I E, i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i ty, J O E G ED D I E, i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, P H I LL I P S TR EE T, i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 6, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and E BE L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. *2

TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e: Inthi s a ct ionf

or dam ag es br ough t un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, E dw ar d J. Re es e alleged that officer s of the Da de County , G eorgia, Sheriff ’ s Depar tm ent used
ex ce ssi ve f

or ce in ar re sti ng h im , in vio la tio n of his r igh ts unde r the F ourth A m en dm en t. H e al so a lle ge d th at the ir sup er vis or f ai le d a de qua te ly

to tr ai n and supe rv ise the m

and tha t he w as de pr ive d of m ed ic al tr eatm en t i n vi olatio n of the Fourteenth Am endm ent. T he district court granted the defendants summ ary j udgm en t ona lte rn at ive gr ound s: ( 1) no c onst itu tio na l vi olatio ns o cc ur re d, and ( 2)
assum ing th at violation s occurred, the defendants wer e entitled to qualified im m uni ty f ro m sui t be ca use the r el ev an t c as e lawdid not c le ar ly e sta bli sh tha t the
co nduc t of

the de fe ndants inf

ri nge d R ee se ’ s r igh ts unde r the F ourth and Fourteenth Am endm ents. Re ese now a ppeals the denial of his excessiv e forc e cl ai m s. H e al so c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti on f

or le av e to
am end his com

plaint and th e court’ s disallo wance of the af fidavit of his expert wit ne ss . I. A. E dw ar d J. Re es e is the ow ne r an d c ar et ak er of an a partm en t c om

ple x in T re nto n, D ad e Co unty , G eo rg ia
. O n th e ev en ing of S ep te m be r 18, 200 3, the D ad eTh e re is a dis c re pa nc y be tw e e n th e tim e sta

mps in t he patr ol c ar v ide ota

pe s o f D e puty 1 Geddie a nd Deputy

J oshua He rber

t. Deputy Geddie’ s patrol ca

r wa s parke d fac ing H igdon’ s apar tment, and the ca

mera picked up some of

Geddie’ s movements there . His car ’s videotape indicates that he was a lrea dy inside Hig don’s apa

rtment at 6:46 p.m. and that Hig don was plac ed in h is p atr ol c ar at aro un d 6 :51 p. m. H e rb e rt ’s patr ol c ar v ide ota pe do e s n ot c a

ptu re the se e ve nts , but ext rapolating f

rom the time stamp of later incidents, Geddie arr ived at Hig don’s apa rtment at 7:5 7 p .m. , a

nd he pla c e d h e r i n h is p atr ol c ar a t 8: 03 p. m. T he a c tua l ti me that th e se e ve nts oc c ur re d is of little signif

ic anc e ; w hat matte rs is t

hat th e inc ide nt t

hat g ave ri se to t

his law s uit appea rs to have oc curr ed about 15 minutes af ter De puty

Geddie f irst arrive d on the sce ne. 3 Co unty S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t di spatc he r ca lle d ade puty she ri ff , Jos ep h G ed die (“ D ep uty G ed die ”) , to re spon d to adom es tic vio le nc e ca ll at Re es e’ s a

partm en t com plex. T he dispatcher inform ed De putyGe ddie that the parents of the wom an invo lved in th e re ported viol ence w ere also on th eir w ay . De putyGe ddie arrived at the apartm en t c om

ple x f ir st and w as dir ec te d to the apartm en t oc cu pie d by A m an daCr ai g H igd on. S he w as the re w ithhe r boy fr ie nd, w ho c la im ed that sh e ha d a ssa ult ed him
. H igd on w as c oope rativ e, and w ith in f ive or so m inu te s, D ep uty G ed die w as able to ar

re st, handc uf

f, and p la ce he r in the ba ck of his pa tr ol
car. H e the n r et

ur ne d to H igd on’ s a

partm en t t o in te rv ie wthe boy fr ie nd. Jos hua 1 H er be rt , anothe r de puty

she ri ff , arr ive d so on a ft er

and e nte re d th e ap ar

tm en t t o as sis t D ep uty

G ed die
. About

six m inu te s late r, H igd on’ s pare nts , Ma c Cr ai g and his w if e, arr ive d a t the apartm en t and c onf ro nte d D ep uty

G ed die about

the ir daught er. D eputy

Ge ddie toldthe Cra igs to leave the bui lding and instructed Herb ertto st ay

ou ts id e wit h t he m

to en su re t ha t n o o ne els e en te redth e ap art m en t.Tr oo pe r G e dd ie and De puty Ge dd ie are c ou sin s. 2 4 G eo rg iaS ta te T ro ope r Ja son G ed die ( “ T ro ope r G ed die ”) a lso r es pond ed to the dom es tic vio le nc e ca ll as ac ourte sy to loc al lawe nf

or ce m en t. Whe n he

2
ar ri ve d a t the apartm en t c om ple x, he obs er

ve d H er be rt standi ng o uts ide the build ing. T rooper Ge ddie judged that the situatio n was under control and returned to h is v eh ic le
. S oon the re af te r, anothe r de puty

she ri ff , D an ny E lli s, arr ive d and park ed his ve hic le ne xt t o T ro ope r G ed die ’ s. T ro ope r G ed die im m ed ia te ly inf orm ed E lli s th at e ve ry thi ng w as und er

c ontro l. A s th ey

w er e co nve rs ing , T ro ope r G ed die obs er

ve d R ee se dr ive int o th e ap ar tm en t c om

ple x park ing lot

and park his truck on th e opposi te side of E llis’s patr ol car. Ree se sat in his truck for a fe wm inu te s and the n e xit ed his ve hic le and a

ppr oa ch ed

H er be rt . It i s at th is po in t t ha t t he pa rti es ’ acco un ts of wh atto okpl ace d iv erg e. Be ca use ac en tr al iss ue in thi s a ppe al is the pr ope r ve rs ionof the f ac ts t o be cred it edforpu rp os es of o urrev ie w of t he su m m ary jud gm en t i n t hi s ca se , we pr ovi de ade sc ri pti on o f both R ee se ’ s and the de fe ndants ’ ve rs ion s. W e be gin
w ithRe es e’ s ve rs ionof

the f ac ts. A cc or din g to Re es e, he w as w orkin g inhis of fi ce a cr oss the str ee t f

ro m the apartm ent com

plex when he noticed that four law enforcem ent vehicles had park ed in fr ont of the c om ple x. T w o of

the ve hic le s w er e in the park ing lot , and5

tw o w er e blo ck ing the str ee t i n f ro nt o f the c om

ple x. R ee se a lso sawsom e pe opl e standi ng t oge the r out sid e the c om ple x, w hom

he late r le ar

ne d w er e H er

be rt , the Craigs, and his wife, Car ol Reese. Ree se drove over to the apartm ent com plex, sat in h is v eh ic le f

or af ewm inu te s, the n w al ke d up to H er be rt , w ho w as ta lki ng t o th e Cr ai g s . R ee s e w ai t ed n ex tt o h i s wi fe fo r afe w m o re m i n u t es t o g et He rb er t ’s atte nti on and the n a ske d H er be rt w ho w as in ch ar ge . A cc or din g to the a ff idavit s of Mac C raig and Car ol Reese, Reese did no t seem angry or agitated at the tim e, but H er be rt “ re spon de d [ to h im ] in a ve ry be lli ge re nt and h at ef

ul t one ” that the Dad e Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t was in ch arg e. What happened next is not in dispu te. Reese asked Her bert w hich officer
wa s in charge, to which He rbert r eplied that Deputy Ge ddie was in charge but was
oc cu pie d. R ee se the n in qui re d w he the r it w as ne ce ssary f or a ll of the ve hic le s to re m ai n a t the sc en e, sin ce H igd on w as in cu sto dy and the oth er

te nants c oul d no t ge t t o th ei r ap ar

tm en ts. H er

be rt r ep lie d th at

it w as ne ce ssary

f or the ve hic le s to rem ain and toldReese to leave “ or [he w ould ] be going to ja il.” Reese r espond ed that H er be rt didn’ t un de rs tand, that R ee se w as the ow ne r of the apartm en t co m pl ex . At this point , a ccording to Reese, he turned to walk toward T rooper G ed die ’ s ve hic le
. A s he tur ne d, H er be rt gr ab be d hi m

by the le ft arm , thr ewhimReese w as about 61 year s old, 6 feet tall, and w eig hed 185 pounds. He rber t was about 3 31 y ear s old, 5 feet 7 inche s tall, and weighed 240 pounds. De puty Geddie w as about 25 year s old, 6 fee t 3 inches tall, and we ighe d 270 pounds. The re cord doe s not refle ct the ag es and phy sic a l attr ibute s o f t

he oth e r o ff

ic e rs . 6 against the apartm ent build ing in a choke hold, and struck him
. He rbert began shou tin g a t hi m

to sto p r es ist ing
. R ee se , Caro l R ee se , Ma c Cr ai g, and A m an da H igd on atte st tha t R ee se w as not f igh tin g ba ck
. H er

be rt the n th re wRe es e to the gr ound , w he re Re es e lay

f ac e down w ithhis le ft

arm be hin d hi s ba ck

and h is r igh t
ar m und er his body . H er

be rt c al le d f or a ssi stanc e, and the oth er de fe ndants appeared en m asse. Beca use his face w as in the m ulch, Ree se wa s unable to see
w ho s ubse que ntl y

did w ha t. Ma c Cr ai g and C ar ol R ee se obs er ve d E lli s pl ac e his knees on Reese’ s back, and then all four of the defendants piled o n top o f Re ese, co nti nue d tw ist ing his le ft arm be hin d hi s ba ck , and c om m en ce d “ kic kin g and punchi ng him

and y elling ‘stop resisting.’ ” A t som e point, Reese’ s left ar m wa s 3 handc uf fe d. R ee se c oul d no t e xtr ac t hi s r igh t arm f ro m be ne ath hi m

be ca use the de fe ndants w er e on t op o f him
. R ee se r ep eate dly y el le d th at

he w as not

r es ist ing , that they we re bre aking hi s arm , and that th ey we re going to cause him to have a he ar t a tta ck
. Ne ither of the videotapes from De putyGe ddie’ s or He rbert’ s patrol cars de pic t R ee se ’ s ph y sic al e nc ount er w iththe of

fi ce rs . H ow ev er , the vid eo ta pe s’The incide nt occur s on Deputy Geddie’ s videotape at approxim ately 7:02 p.m. 4 Her bert’s vide otape is turned on in the middle of the incident, with a time stamp of a bout 8:11 p.m. Accor ding to De puty Geddie’ s videotape, this entire exchang e took about a minute.

7 au dio r ev ea ls the f

oll ow ing e xc hange be tw ee n H er be rt and R ee se : H E R B E R T : J oe ! [ U ni nt e l l i gi bl e ] w r on g w i t h y ouo l d m a n? H uh ? H uh ? RE E SE : Wha t the he ll ar e y ou d oin g? H E RB E RT : R oll ove r! S top r es ist ing ! S top r es ist ing ! RE E SE : R es ist ing ? MA L E V O IC E S: Ro ll ove r! S top r es ist ing and r oll ove r! R oll him over! RE E SE : Y ou m ak e m e ha ve ahe ar t atta ck , y ou s on o f a bit ch , [u n i n t el l i g i b l e] – MAL E V OI CE : Roll him over. RE E SE : I didn’ t – MA L E V O IC E : H ook him up. S top r es ist ing ! RE E SE : I a in’ t r es ist ing ! MA L E V O IC E : [ U nin te lli gib le
. ] G ive m e hand! RE E SE : I a in’ t r es ist ing ! MA L E V O IC E : G im

m e y our hand! RE E SE : Y ou b ro ke m

y arm , y ou r ott ensonof

abit ch ! MA L E V O IC E : G im

m e y our hand! RE ES E: Yo ug u ys a re [u n i n t el l i g i b l e] – MAL E V OI CE S: Roll it over. Roll it over. RE E SE : S top [ uni nte lli gib le ]
. Y ou m ak e m e ha ve ahe ar t atta ck – MA L E V O IC E S: Ro ll it ove r. [ U nin te lli gib le
. ] S top r es ist ing ! RE E SE : I ’ m

not r es ist ing ! Y ou’ re br eakin g m y arm ! I ’ m

not re sis tin g! I ’ m

not r es ist ing ! M A L E V O I C E S : Y e s yo uar e . L e tth i s arm b a c k
. L e tth i s arm c o me ba ck
. T he re y ou g o. RE ES E: I ’ m

not resisting ! Y ou broke my arm ! Y ou broke my

left arm ! [Un in te ll ig ib le .] My lef t ar m , y ou bro ke it
. . . . 4 D ep uty G ed die the n li ft ed

Re es e’ s he ad

up b y the ha ir and s pr ay ed

Re es e in theRe e se ma int a ins that he wa s n e ve r t old tha t he wa s und e r a

rr e st b e fo re He rb e rt

tr ie d to 5 g rab his ar

m. As rec orded on H erbe rt’s patrol c ar vide otape, the f irst time that Herbe rt rec ounted the incident to the other

office rs at the sc ene, he stated: He c ome s o ve r h e re c omp la ini ng . Y ou a ll n e e d to be he re , s o ma ny c ars ne e d to be out her e? Isaid y es sir. So that went on. And he started a g ain with it. W ho’s y our super

visor? Isaid there ’s a c orpora l inside. Iappre ciate your [uni ntelligible], y ou can le ave now . He sa id Iain’t leavin’ or something . And he 8 face with pepper spray

at very close range. Ree se’ s right arm wa s then hand cuffed
a s w e l l
. R e e s e c a n s ub s e qu e n t l y b e h e a r dp r o t e s t i n g o n th e H e r b e rtv i d e o t ap e : “I didn’ t have no f

igh t. H e j um

pe d onm e, I ne ve r sa id a w or d. ” T he vid eo ta

pe au dio r ev ea ls tha t a

sho rt ti m e la te r, Ma c Cr ai g c om pla ine d to D ep uty

G ed die ab out H er be rt ’ s be ha vio r, e xpl ai nin g th at “ [R ee se ] j ust

sa id I don ’ t se e w he re y ou n e e da l l th e s e p a t r o l c a r s o n my p r o p e rt y, an dth a t– kn o c k e dth e s h i to u to f

h i m, fo r no reas on .” The def endants’ ver sion is m arkedly differ ent. H erbert c laim s that he was st an di ng ou ts id e wit h t he Crai gs when a vi si bl y an gry Rees e wal ke d up t o h im . At his de posi tio n, H er

be rt c la im ed that the f oll ow ing tr an spi re d: [Ree se ] cam e wal ki ng up , why are al l t he se po li ce ca rs do in g h ere. W e’ ve ha d adom es tic c al l ou t he re , e ve ry thi ng i s ok ay , y ou c ango ah ea d and l eave . I ’ m

not le av ing , I ’ m

the landl or d, and I w an t t o kn ow wh o i s i n c ha rg e. Sir , Cor po ral Gedd ie is in ch arg e, he ’s in si de
. So m e of the oth er pe opl e that w er e the re , the y start ed to ta lk a bout so m e d am ag e in si de . At th atpo in t I t ol d e ve ry bo dy the y co ul d a ll , I said, listen, e very

body , y ’ all need to go ahead and leave. And then the thi rd and f ina l t im e E d R ee se tol d m e he w as not le av ing be ca

use h e w a s th e l a n d l o r dI s a i dh e w a s u n d e r arr e s t , an dI g r ab b e dh i s arm. 5g oe s li ke thi s. Di d you se e it? As Her bert is transpor

ting Ree se to the Da de County jail, the followingexchang e occ ured: REESE: Idon’t know why y ou attacke d me. HERBERT: Why ? Be cause y ou pulled awa y from me, Mr. Re ese. R E E S E : P u l l e d

aw ay f r o myo u ? Y o up u tyo ur

h an d s o nm e . I d i dn ’ tt ak e an y – an y – HERBERT: Mr. Ree se, I

told y ou to leave.

. . . HERBERT: You should have never pulled awa

y from me, Mr. Re ese. REE SE: Yo u s ho uld

ne ve r h ave atta c ke d me . [U ninte lli g ibl e ] . . . se ttl e thi s in c ourt . HE R BE R T : M r. R ee s e, Iwa s es co rt i n g y o uaw ay fr o mth e b u i l d i n g. REESE: Yes, y ou broke my f—ingarm, for

no rea son. 9 As E llis was about to leave the scene, he sawHe rbert attem pting to grab Re es e’ s arm

and R ee se pul lin g hi s arm aw ay . E lli s e xit ed

his ve hic le and ap pr oa ch ed

the pa ir , int en din g to a ssi st. H er be rt te sti fi ed a t hi s de posi tio n: I gr ab be d hi s arm , and h e pul le d aw ay f ro m m e. H e sa id, don ’ t pu t y our hands o n m e, and his handwe nt in a fist. .
. . And pulled away at the sam e tim e. . . . O nc e he did that I ste ppe d ina ga in w iththe gr ab bi ng to arre st hi m , and iten su edin to a wres tl in g t y pe m at ch . He w as r es ist ing , I w as tr

y ing to ar re st h im , w e w er e str

uggl ing
. B othof u s cr as h ed up ag ai n s tth e w i n d o w wa l l ar ea [o f t h e ap ar t m en t ]. D ep uty G ed die he ar d “ a big thu d” on t he br ic k w al l of

the apartm en t bui ldi ng and h eard

H er be rt y el lin g hi s nam e fo r as sis tanc e. D ep uty G ed die ope ne d th e fr ont

doo r of the apartm en t bu ild ing and s awH er be rt and R ee se str uggl ing tog et

he r an d th enf

al lin g to the gr ound
. R ee se and H er be rt f el l f or w ar d, knoc kin g E lli s ov er

in the pr oc es s. A t this poi nt the te sti m ony of the de put ie s is10

som ewha t a t vari an ce . E lli s te sti fi ed that he f el l ontop of

H er be rt , w ho w as on t op of Re es e, w ho l ay

f ac e- down onthe gr ound

w ithe ith er

one or both arm s be ne ath him
. H er be rt c la im s th at

he w as not

on t op o f Re es e but

w as on h is k

ne es be hin d h i m. E l l i s s c r a mb l e dt o h i s f e e tan da t t e mp t e dt o t a k e h o l do f R e e s e ’s l e f

tarm, pul lin g of

f Re es e’ s w at chin the pr oc es s. R ee se j er ke d hi s arm

ba ck
. E lli s to ok hol d of Re es e’ s le ft

arm w ithboth hands an d th enf el t the le ft

arm “ go s ort of

sof t, j ust a m usc ular fe el ing
. ” S en sin g so m ethin g w as w ro ng, E lli s st oppe d pu lli ng the
ar m ba ck
. T ro ope r G ed die c la im s th at he he ar d R ee se lou dly

c ur sin g – s om ethin g to the e ff ec t of “ I’ ll kil l y ou b as tard s” – and r ef usi ng H er be rt ’ s r ep eate d r eque sts f or him to get off his hand or hands so that he couldbe handcuffed. Believing that He rb er tn ee d ed h i s as s i s t an ce , Tr o o p erGe d d i e p o s i t i o n ed h i m s el f n ea r R ee s e’s h ea dan dap p l i ed a n o n -l et h al , “ s o ft h an d s ” p re s s u re p o i n tt ec h n i qu e t o Re es e’s
ne ck to subd ue him
. T ro ope r G ed die sto ppe d a ppl y ing the m an euve r w he n he
re al iz ed that i t w as havin g no e ff ec t. Apart

f ro m that m an euve r, T ro ope r G ed die claim s he had no ot her phy sical contact w ith Reese. De putyGe ddie then sp ray ed Reese in the face with one burst of pepperDeputy Geddie te stified at his deposition that Reese neve r g ot up off the ground and w as 6 never rolling a round. Re e se ’s me dic a l e xpe rt , D r. Rob e rt Ma ste y , o bs e rv e d th at Re e se ha d “ mul tip le 7 contusions of the che st and abra sions of the lower e x tremities, pain in the nec k and lumbar ba ck are a, a sma ll frac ture on the inside of the elbow, a

chipped f rac ture off

the triquetrous bone in the wrist, hy per e x tension, and interna l rotation injury in that reg ion.” O.C.G.A. § 16-10- 24(a) provides that “[e]x cept a s otherwise pr ovided in subsection (b) 8 of thi s Co de se c tio n [c on c e rn ingfe lony ob str uc tio n], a pe rs on wh o k no wi ng ly and wi llf ull y ob str uc ts o r h ind e rs any

law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r i n th e lawf

ul d isc ha rg e of his of fi c ia l dutie s is guilty of a misdemea

nor.” Reese a lso sued Phill ip Street, the Da de County Sheriff, f or inade quate tra ining a

nd 9 supervision. His complaint soug ht damag es ag ainst Herbe rt on the additional g round that he fa ile d to pr ov ide Re e se wi th a de qu ate me dic a l tr e atme nt. In th e ini tia l br ie f h e fi le d in thi s appea l, Reese a

bandoned this cla im ag ainst Herbe rt and a ll claims ag ainst Street. We confine our d i s c u s s i o na c c o r d i n g l y. 11 spray , which enabled Herber t to handcuff Reese. H erbert r etrieved Ree se’ s watc h 6
as well as R ees e’s gl as se s, wh ic h h adbe en kn oc ke d o ff dur in g t he st ru gg le
. About e igh t m inu te s late r, Re es e w as tr an spor te d to the D ad e Co unty

j ai l i n He rbert’ s patrol car, and about half an hou r af ter that he w as taken to Er langer H ospi ta l f

or tr eatm en t. R ee se w as sub se que ntl y c harg ed w ithm isd em eanor 7 obstru ct ionpur suant t o O
. C. G
. A
. § 16 -1 0- 24( a)
. H e sto od tri al in the D ad e 8 C o u n t y S up e r i o r

C o u rt , an dth e ju ry fo u n dh i m n o tg u i l t y.

B. O n S ep te m

be r 6, 200 5, Re es e fi le d th is l awsui t a ga ins t H er be rt , D ep uty G ed die , E lli s, and T ro ope r G ed die in the U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the 9 Northern D istrict of Ge orgia, see king dam ages against them in both their officia l42 U. S.C. § 1 98 3 p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art : 10 Every person who, unde r color of any statute, ordinanc e, re gulation, custom, or us a g e , o f a

ny State or Te rr ito ry or the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia , s ub

je c ts, or c a us e s to be subjec ted, any

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the de privation of any rig hts, privilege s, or immuniti es secur ed by

the Constitut ion and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law , suit in equity , or other pr oper pr ocee ding f or re dress . . . . The F ourth Amendment is applica ble to the state a

nd local g overnme nts under the Due 11 Process Clause of

the Four teenth Amendme nt. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct . 1684, 16 91 , 6 L . E d. 2d

10 81 (1 96 1) . In a dd iti on to a sse rt ingan e xce ssi ve fo rc e c la im und e r t he F ourt h Amendment, Ree se asse rts an excessive f orce claim under

the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. B eca

use “a ll claims that law enfor ceme nt office rs have used excessive for ce – deadly or not – in the course of an a rre st, investigator

y stop, or other ‘se izure’ of a fre e citizen should be ana ly

zed under the F ourth Amendment a nd its ‘rea sonablene ss’ standar d, rathe r than a ‘substantive due pr ocess’ approa ch,” G raha m v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S. C t. 1865, 1871, 104 L . Ed. 2d 443 (1989), w e ana ly ze Reese’ s excessive forc e cla im in the contextof the Four th Amendment only . See also Ga rre tt v. Athens-Clarke County , 378 F.3d 1274, 1279 n.11 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotingGutierre z v. C ity of San Antonio, 139 F.3d 441, 452 ( 5th Cir. 1998), fo r t he pr op os iti on

that “ F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt a

na ly sis do e s n ot b e g in u

nti l a ft e r t he inc ide nts o f ar r e s tar e c o mp l e t e d , a f

t e r th e p l a i n t i f

f h a s b e e nr e l e a s e d

f r o mth e ar

r e s t i n go f f i c e r ’ s c u s t o dy, and af ter the pla intiff has bee n in detention awa iting trial for a sig nificant pe riod of time”) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 12 an d in div idu al c ap ac iti es und er 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 f

or usi ng e xc es siv e fo rc e in 10 violatio n of the Fourth and Fourteenth Am endm ents. H e also asserted a num ber 11 of claim s under Georgia state law. O n Novem ber 21, 2005, Ree se filed an
am en de d c om

pla int that de le te d hi s st at e lawc la im s and h is c la im s a ga ins t the of fic ers in th ei r of

fic ia l capa ci ti es . In their answe rs to Reese’ s am ended com plaint, the defendants denied liabilityand asserted as an a ffirm ative defense that they we re e ntitled to qualified im m uni ty f ro m sui t. O n M ar ch10, 200 6, H er be rt , D ep uty

G ed die , and E lli sTh e pr op os e d s e c on d ame nd e d c omp la int a lso c onta ine d a

c la im a g a ins t a ll d e fe nd ants 12 for f ailure to provide medical tre atment. Reese abandone d this claim in his i nitial brief on appea l. 13 j oin tly m ove d th e co urt f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t; T ro ope r G ed die m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t f

our day s late r. O n Apr il 10, Re es e fi le d ar es pons e in oppo sit ionto the de fe ndants ’ m oti ons an d an a cc om pany ing br ie f. A tta ch ed

to the br ie f w er e the a ff

idavit s of Ma c Cr ai g, A m an daH igd on, Caro l R ee se , and V an div er K el le r, an e xpe rt

in lawe nf

or ce m en t po lic ie s and p ro ce dur es . A lso on Apr il 10, Re es e m ove d th e co urt f or le av e to f

ile ase co nd am en de d c om pla int
co nta ini ng an a ddi tio na l c la im a ga ins t H er

be rt f or unl aw fu l arr es t. T he 12 de fe ndants obj ec te d to Re es e’ s m oti on f or le av e to am en d and m ove d th e co urt t o strike Keller ’ s affidavit as untim ely under Federa l Rule of Civil Proce dure 26(a) and Local R

ule 26.2(C). T hey

also m oved the court to st rike the aff idavits o f Mac Craig, Am anda Higdon, and Car ol Reese on the ground th at they constitu ted

“ sham s.” O n Ju ly 10, 200 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d an or de r de ny ing Re es e’ s m oti on fo r le av e to am en d; g ranti ng the de fe ndants ’ m oti on t o stri ke K el le r’ s a ff idavit ; de ny ing the ir

m oti on t o stri ke the a ff

idavit s of Ma c Cr ai g, A m an daH igd on, and Caro l R ee se ; and g ranti ng the de fe ndants ’ m oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe gr ound of qua lif ie d im m uni ty . R ee se v. H er

be rt , N o. 4:0 5- CV -0 193- RL V , 200 6B e c a us e bo th o f t

he se iss ue s are c omm itt e d to the so un d d isc re tio n o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt , 13 we r eview a

court’s de nial of leave to amend a nd discovery

ruling s for a

buse of discr etion. B ur g e r K ingCor

p. v. Wea ve r, 16 9 F .3 d 1 31 0, 13 15 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 9) . Ind e e d, “ we wi ll o nly reve rse a district court’s de nial of a motion to amend in instance s in which the district court ha s clea rly abused its discre tion.” Smit h v. Sch. Bd., 487 F .3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2007) (pe r curiam) (empha sis added) ( internal quotation marks a nd citation omitted). Fr om the time they

wer e esta blished, Article I I Icourts have had an 14 assortment of “ inhere nt powers,” all derive d from the c ommon law. While never

specifie d in the Constit ution or leg islative e na c tme nts , th e se po we rs a ssi ste d c ourt s in e xer c isi ngthe ir 14 W L 189 2026 , a t *1 9 (N . D . G a. Jul y 10, 200 6)
. R ee se nowappe al s, c ha lle ngi ng the c ourt’ s a dve rs e ru lin gs. II. T he f ir st tw o is sue s R ee se r ai se s qu es tio n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his
m oti on f or le av e to f

ile ase co nd am en de d c om pla int and i ts d isa llo w an ce of K el le r’ s a ff

idavit
. W e ad dr es s th es e iss ue s intur n. 13 A. Re es e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his
m oti on f or le av e to f

ile ase co nd am en de d c om pla int , w hic h w oul d have a dde d a fa lse arr es t c la im

a ga ins t H er

be rt . A s w e ha ve f

re que ntl y obs er ve d, tho ugh le av e to am end is “ free ly

given when j ustice so requires,” it is “ not an autom atic right.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P . 15( a) ( 2006 ); F as er v. S ears , Ro eb uc k & Co
. , 674 F . 2d 8 56, 860 (1 1thCi r. 198 2)
. Adis tr ic t c ourt m ay , in the e xe rc ise of it s inhe re nt p ow er

to
m an ag e the c ondu ct

of li tig at ionbe fo re it , de ny suc h le av e w he re the re is 14enumer ated judicial powe rs, such a s manag ing the ir ca ses and c ourt ro oms . By rne v. N ezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1131 n.110 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 15 subs tanti al gr ound

f or doi ng s o, suc h a s “ undu e de lay , ba d f ai th o r dil at or

y m oti ve on the part

of the m ovant, r ep eate d f

ai lur e to c ur e de fi ci en ci es by a m en dm en ts previousl y

allowed, undu e prej udice to the opp osing party by virtue of allowance of the a m en dm en t, [ an d] f

uti lity of a m en dm ent. ” I d. a t 13 19 ( quot ing F om anv. Dav is , 37 1 U.S. 1 78 , 18 2, 8 3 S . Ct. 2 27 , 23 0, 9 L. Ed. 2d22 2 (1 96 2) ). The reco rdco nt ai ns am

pl e rea so ns supp or ti ng th e d is tri ctco ur t’s ru li ng . T he m oti on f

or le av e to am en d a cc om

panie d R ee se ’ s r es pons e to the de fe ndants ’
m oti ons fo r sum

m ar y j udgm en t and w as f

ile d ne ar ly

se ve n w ee ks a ft er

the c los e of dis co ve ry . B ec au se the pe ri od f or dis co ve ry

ha d e xpi re d, gr an tin g th e m oti on would have caused the defendants undue prej udice, as they would not have been able to conduct further discovery with re spect to the claim the proposed
am en dm en t a sse rt ed
. S ee L ow e’ s H om e Ctrs . , I nc . v. O linCo rp . 313 F . 3d 1 307, 1315 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2) ( “ [I ] t i s no t an a buse of dis cr et ionf

or adis tr ic t c ourt t o de ny a m oti on f

or le av e to am en d f

oll ow ing the c los e of

dis co ve ry , pa st the de ad lin e fo r am en dm en ts and p as t the de ad lin e fo r fi lin g di spos iti ve m oti ons. ”)
. A t bo tto m , the dis tr ic t c ourt r eg ar de d R ee se ’ s m oti on “ m er el y a s an a tte m

pt t o de fe at

the pe ndi ngIn B onne r v . Ci ty of Pr ic ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (e n b anc ), thi s 15 c ourt a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll d e c isi on s o f t he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d own p ri or

to October 1, 1981. 16 s u m m ary ju d g m en tm o t i o n s .” Re es e, 2 0 0 6 WL 1 8 9 2 0 2 6 , a t* 7 . S ee al s o Lo we ’s Hom e Ctrs. , I nc., 313 F.3d at 1315 (“ It is not an abuse of discretion for a district
co urt t o de ny

am oti on f

or le av e to am en d ac om

pla int w he n su chm oti on i s designedto avoid an im

pendin g adverse sum

m ary j udgm ent.”)
. Reese c ontend s that his d elay in m ovin g for leave to am end was j ustified because “ the need for the Se cond Am ended Com plaint becam e obviou s onlyafter
a tho ro ugh re vie wof

the c ri m ina l tri al tr an sc ri pt, the de posi tio ns o f the part ie s, an d c onsu ltatio n w ithP la int if f’ s e xpe rt a ft er he ha d th e oppo rt

uni ty to re vie wa ll of the ref erence d transcripts.” W e find this reason plainlyinsufficient. I n L ay fi el d v. Bi ll H eard

Ch ev ro le t C o. , w e af

fi rm ed the de nia l of

le av e to am en d wher e the plaintiff sough t to raise an issue for the fir st tim e af ter the defe ndant had
m oved for summ ary

j udgm ent, noting th at “ all of the fac ts relevant to the propos ed
am endm ent wer e known to the appellant at the tim e she filed her original
co m pla int
. ” 607 F . 2d 1 097, 109 9 ( 5thCi r. 197 9) ( pe r curi am). S im ilarl y , in the 15
ca se a t hand, the e vid en ce upo n w hic h R ee se w as ba sin g hi s f al se arr es t c la im ag ai nst H er be rt w as e sse nti al ly

kno w n to Re es e at

the ti m e he f

ile d bo th h is original and first am ended com plaints. The additio nal utilityhe m ay have gainedL awyers of experience , who pra ctice what we boa st to be a lea rned 16 profe ssion, owe a duty both to their clients and to the cour t, and, perha ps, even to other

members of

their prof

ession, who appe ar a s op po sin gc ouns e l, t o p re pa re c a se s p ro pe rl y , to g ive the iss ue s f ull c on sid e ratio n b e fo re pr e pa ri ngple a din g s, a

nd , in g e ne ra l, t o exercise dilig ence in the prac tice of the ir profe ssion. Code of Pr of e ssi on a l Re sp on sib ili ty

DR 6- 10 1. Whil e a

tr ia l c ourt

may us e other re medial measur es, we do not consider that it was a n abuse of dis c re tio n und e r t

he c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

his c a se fo r t

he tr ia l c ourt

to deny counsel the r ight, a fter submitting the case on one set of hy po the se s and

le arn ingthat th is w a s n ot e no ugh, to atte mpt to inj e c t ne w i ssu e s in

the ho pe of

a c hie vin ga

dif fe re nt r e su lt. L amar v. Am. Fin. Sy s. of Fulton County , Inc., 577 F .2d 953, 955 (5th Cir. 1978). We note, moreove r, that the district cour t treate d with leniency

Reese’ s reque st for 17 leave to amend. As the de fenda nts point out , and Ree se does not dispute, his motion did not comply with L ocal Rule 7.1(A )(2) , which re quires that all motions (except for c erta in specified motions) be filed within 30 day s after the beg inning of

discovery , unless the prior pe rmission of the c ourt ha s b e e n o bta ine d. L R 7. 1( A) (2 ), ND Ga . Re e se ’s br ie f i n r e sp on se to t he de fe nd ants ’ op po sit ion

to h is m oti on

wa s a lso untim e ly ; it

wa s d ue on Ap ri l 26 , 2 00 6, but w a s n ot f ile d unti l May 8, 2006. Nonethele ss, the district court “r eviewe d the merits of the pla intiff’s brief and found them to be unpe rsuasive.” Reese v. H erbe rt, No. 4:05-CV-0193- RL V, 2006 WL1892026, at *7 n. 14 (N .D . G a . July 10 , 2 00 6) . T he c ourt

wa s b y no me ans ob lig e d to ov e rl oo k h is violation of the local rule s. See, e.g ., L ay field v. B ill Heard Chevr olet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1979) (pe r cur iam) (“ A local r ule of the district c ourt requir es that all written motions be a c c omp anie d b y

su pp or tin gbr ie fs and

a ff ida vit s. [Th e re fo re ], th e dis tr ic t c ourt c ou ld p ro pe rl y deny leave to amend for

failure to comply

with the local rule .”). 17 from review ing th e transcr ipts of the defendants’ depositions and his crim inal trial
an dco n s u l t i n g h i s ex p er td i dn o tju s t i fy th e d el ay i n s ee k i n g l ea v e t o amen d . We do n ot l igh tly

r eg ar d “ the duty

of an a tto rn ey

to pr ep ar e a ca se pr ope rl y and t o gi ve the iss ue s f

ull c onsi de ratio n be fo re pr ep ar ing ple ad ing s. ” I d. G ive n th e 16 ci rc um stanc es be fo re it , the dis tr ic t c ourt w as w el l w ith in i ts d isc re tio n inde ny ing Re es e’ s m oti on f

or le av e to am en d. 17As it was then phra sed, Rule 26 re quired that “ a par ty shall disclose to other par ties the 18 i d e n t i ty” o f

an y e x p e rtw i tn e s s t o b e u s e d attr i a l , w h i c hd i s c l o s ur e mu s t“ b e a c c o mp an i e d b y a written re port prepa

red a nd signe d by

the witness.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)( A), (B ) (2006)
. Such repor

t must contain a complete statement of a ll opinions to be expressed a nd the basis and r easons there for; the data or other information consider ed by the witness in formingthe opinions; any

exhibi ts to be used as a

summary of or support f

or the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the prec edingten y ear s; the compensation to be pa id for the study and testimony ; and a listing of any other c ases in which the witness has testified a s an expert at trial or

by deposition within t he pre cedingfour year s. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 26(a) (2)( B)
. 18 B. Re es e c l ai m s th at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ab u s ed i t s d i s cr et i o n i n s t ri k i n g Ke l l er ’s af fi da vit f ro m the r ec or d. R ee se sub m itt ed his Ru le 26 i nit ia l di sc los ur es on Novem ber 21, 2005, stating that there we re no known experts at the tim e (other than m ed ic al e xpe rt s) , and s ta tin g th at he w oul d su

ppl em en t hi s r es pons e “ as soo n as he r et ai ns a ddi tio na l e xpe rt s. ” R ee se f orm al ly r et ai ne d K el le r on D ec em be r 7, 18 2005
. O n F eb ru ar

y 9, 200 6, tw el ve day s be fo re the c los e of dis co ve ry , Re es e verbally inform ed the defendants that he had retained Ke ller. N o expert report
w as pr ovi de d a t tha t t im e. I t w as not unt il Apr il 10, ne ar ly

se ve n w ee ks a ft er

the expiration of the dis covery period, that Re ese subm itted an affidavit from Ke ller
as pa rt o f hi s b rie f in op po si ti on to th e d efen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns . W e fi nd n o a

buse of dis cr et ionin the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to e xc lud e19

K el le r’ s a ff

idavit
. T he c ourt ba se d it s de ci sio n onRe es e’ s f ai lur e to d isc los e Ke ller’ s identityear lier in the discovery period. R

ule 26 do es not prescribe a spe ci fi c de ad lin e ap pli ca

ble he re ( be ca

use atr ia l date ha d no t be ense t) , but the
expe rt dis cl osur e ru le is int en de d to pr ovi de opp osi ng p ar tie s “ ‘ re as ona

ble oppo rt uni ty to pr ep ar e fo r ef

fe ct ive c ro ss e xa m inatio n and p er ha ps arr an ge f

or expe rt te sti m ony

f ro m oth er w itn es se s. ’ ” S he rr od v
. L ing le , 223 F . 3d 6 05, 613 (7th Cir. 2000 ) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P . 26(a) (2) advisory com m ittee’ s note). I n ac co rd an ce w iththi s purp ose , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s lo ca l r ule pr ovi de s th at : A ny part y w ho d es ir es to use the te sti m ony of an e xpe rt w itn es s sh al l de sig na te the w itn es s su ff ic ie ntl y e ar ly in the dis co ve ry

pe ri od t o pe rm it the opp osi ng p ar

ty the opp ortun ity

to de pose the e xpe rt

and, if de sir ed , to na m e its ow n e xpe rt w itn es s su ff

ic ie ntl y in advanc e of

the cl ose of dis co ve ry

so tha t a sim ilar dis co ve ry

de posi tio n of

the se co nd e x p e rtmi g h ta l s o b e c o n du c t e dp r i o r t o th e c l o s e o f

d i s c o v e ry. A ny part y w ho d oe s no t c om

ply w iththe pr ovi sio ns o f the fo re goi ng p ar ag ra

ph s ha ll not

be pe rm itt ed

to of fe r the te sti m ony

of the party ’ s expert, unless expressly authorized by

court order based uponasho w ing that the f ai lur e to c om

ply w as j ust if

ie d. LR 26.2(C), ND Ga
. As a thresholdm atter, the Februar y 9, 2006, re velation of Keller’ s nam e w as no t en ou gh to di sc ha rg e Ree se ’s ob li ga ti on un de r th e fed eral an d l oc al rul es .

“ D isc los ur e of

e xpe rt te sti m ony ” w ith in the m eanin g of the f ed er al r ule contem plates not on ly

the identification of the expert, but also the provis ion of a20

w ri tte n r ep ort c ont ai nin g “ a co m ple te state m en t of

a ll opi nio ns” and “ the ba sis and reasons therefor. ” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 26(a) (2)(B ). Furtherm ore, the local rules
re qui re d di sc los ur e that w as “ suf fi ci en tly e ar ly in the dis co ve ry

pe ri od” so a s to perm it the defendants to depo se Ke ller, and poss ibly to nam e a r ebuttal expert

“ suf fi ci en tly in advanc e of

the c los e of

dis co ve ry ” so tha t the e xpe rt c oul d a lso be deposed during the dis covery period. L R 26.2(C) , N DG a. Rule 26, howe ver, pr ovi de s th at

the de posi tio ns o f suc h e xpe rt s “ sha ll not be c ondu ct ed

unt il af te r the
re p o rt i s p ro v i d ed .” Fe d . R . C i v . P . 2 6 (b )( 4 )( A) . Th e d i s cl o s u re o f K el l er ’s af fi da vit a lm ost se ve n w ee ks a ft er

the c los e of

dis co ve ry

f or ec los ed the de fen da nt s’ op po rtu ni ty to d ep os e Kel le r an d t o o bt ai n a n e xp ertof t he ir o wn. A s it r ea d a t the ti m e, Ru le 37( c) (1 ) pr ovi de s th at “ [a ] party

that w ith out subs tanti al j ust if

ic at ionf ai ls t o di sc los e inf

orm at ionr equir ed

by Ru le 26( a) or 26(e)(1) .
. . is not, unless such failure is harm less, perm itted to us e as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a m otion any witness or inform ation no t so dis closed.” Fed. R. Civ. P . 37(c) (1) (2006). Reese’ s proffer ed excuse for the delay is that K el le r co uld

not have r en de re d apr ope r w ri tte n r ep ort w ith out f ir st r ev ie w ing the part ie s’ de posi tio ns, w hic h w er e take n onJanuary 26, 200 6, and the tr an sc ri pts fr om Re es e’ s c ri m ina l tri al
. R ee se c la im s th at he did not r ec ei ve the tr ia l transc ri pt unt il January

26 and the de posi tio n tr an sc ri pts unt il Fe br uary 13; he a lso poi nts21

out th at he subm itted Keller ’ s affidavit on the day it wa s com

pleted. T he district
co urt f ound thi s e xc use uns at isf

ac tor y f or the r ea son that i t “ m er el y a ddr es se s w hy hi s ex pe rt wa s n ot ab le to pro du ce h is affi da vi t ea rli er i n t he di sc ov ery pr oc es s,”
an d p ro vi de s n o re as on forth e u nt im el y id en ti fic at io n o f Kel le r’s na m e. Ina ddi tio n to thi s, w e dis ag re e w ithRe es e’ s c hara ct er iz at ionof the
ne ce ssi ty of the tr ia l and d ep osi tio n tr an sc ri pts to K el le r’ s w ri tte n r ep ort. T he
ou tc om e o f th e cri m in al tri al , forex am pl e, was no t cr it ic al to Kell er’s o pi ni on . K el le r co uld

have r en de re d ar ep ort ba se d up on the pr es en ta tio n m ad e in the crim inal trial or based upon factual assum ption s furnished to h im

by Reese. If tho se a ssu m

pti ons subs eque ntl y

tur ne d ou t t o be e rr one ous, K el le r co uld have supp le m en te d th e re port at a late r tim e. Mo re ove r, a t a m ini m um , Re es e co uld have filed a m otion to extend the dis covery period so as to perm it a proper dis cl osur e. H e of

fe re d no e xc use f

or f ai lin g to do s o. “ Be ca

use the e xpe rt

w itn es s discovery rules are designed to allow both sides in a ca se to prepare their cases ad equa te ly

and t o pr ev en t surp ri se , c om pli an ce w iththe r equir em en ts o f Ru le 26 i s not m erely

aspirational.” C ooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 728 (11t h Cir. 2004 ),
ove rr ule d onoth er

gr ound s by

A sh v
. T y son Fo ods, I nc . , 546 U . S. 454 , 457 –58, 126 S. Ct. 1195 , 1197–98 , 163 L. Ed. 2d 105 3 (2006) (citing Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 613)
. H er e, the f

ai lur e to c om

ply w ithRu le 26( a) w as both un j ust if ie d andWe observe, mor eover , that pursuant to Rule 26(e) (1), a party is subject to “a 19 continuing duty

to make a se asonable supplementation to its original a nswers to a

ny question askingfor the ide ntity

of an e x pert witness e x pecte d to be ca lled at trial, the subjec t matter on which the e x pert will testify and the substanc e of his testimony .” Ha ncock v. H obbs, 967 F.2d 462, 468 (11th Cir. 1992). The de fenda nts indicate that Reese “neve r ame nded his initial disclosures to disclose to all par ties his purported expert witness and sa id expert’s written repor t.” Rule 83 require s a district court’ s local rules to be consistent with the Fe dera l Rules of 20 Civil Procedur e. F ed. R. Civ. P. 83(a) (2006) ( authorizing fe dera l courts to presc ribe loca l rules “ c on sis te nt w ith– b ut n ot d up lic ativ e of

– A c ts o f C on g re ss a

nd ru le s a do pte d und e r 2 8 U .S. C. §§ 2072 and 2075”)
. L oc a l Ru le 56 .1 (B )( 2) pr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art : 21 A re spondent to a summary judgme nt motion s hall include the f ollowing documents with the re sponsive brief: a . Are sp on se to t

he mov ant’ s st ate me nt o f u nd isp ute d f

a c ts. (1) This re sponse shall contain individually numbere d, concise , nonargumentative response s corr espondingto eac h of the movant’s numbe red undisputed mate rial fa c ts. (2) This Court will deem ea ch of the movant’s fa cts as admitted unless the responde nt: (i) direc tly

ref utes the movant’s fa cts with concise r esponses supported by

specific citations to evidence (includingpag e or pa ragraph numbe r); (i i) state s a

va lid ob je c tio n to the a dmi ssi bil ity of the mov ant’ s f

a c t; o r ( iii ) p oints out that the movant’s citation does not support the movant’s f act or that the movant’s fa ct is not material or othe rwise ha s failed to comply with the provisions set out in L R 56.1 B.(1)
. (3) The court will dee m the movant’s citations supportive of its fac ts unless the responde nt specifica lly

informs the cour

t to the contrar

y in the response
. (4) The response that a par ty has insufficie nt knowledg e to admit or deny is not an a c c e pta ble re sp on se un le ss t

he pa rt y ha s c omp lie d w iththe pr ov isi on s o f F e d. R. 22 harm fu l t o th e de fe ndants ; thus, the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly a ct ed w ith in i ts d isc re tio n by e xc lud ing the K el le r af

fi da vit
. 19 III . Reese c laim s that the dist rict court violated Federa l Rule of Civil Proce dure 83 be ca use the c ourt a

ppl ie d L oc al Ru le 56. 1( B) (2 ) in a m an ne r that i s 20 21Civ. P . 56(f)
.

We “g ive[] g reat defe renc e to a district cour t’s interpre tation of its local rules” a nd 22 revie w a district cour

t’s application of loc al rules f or an a buse of discr etion. Quick v. Peoples Ba nk of Cullman County , 993 F.2d 793, 798 ( 11th Cir. 1993); Clark v. Housing A uth. of Alma, 971 F.2d 723, 727 ( 11th Cir. 1992). We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme nt, applying the same leg al standards a s the district court. Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F .3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). “Summary

judgme nt is a lethal wea

pon, and cour

ts must . . . beware of over kill in i ts use.” Br unswick Corp. v. Vinebe rg , 370 F.2d 605, 612 ( 5th Cir. 1967). Acc ording ly , summary judgme nt is only

appropr iate whe re, vie wingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the nonmoving pa

rty , “the r ecor d befor e the district cour t shows that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t” such that the mova nt is entitl ed to judg ment as a matter of law . Welding Servs., Inc. v. F orman, 509 F .3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2007). Reese a lso cites Rule 1 for the w ell-worn statement that the fe dera l rules “sha ll be 23 construed a

nd administered to sec ure the just, speedy , and inexpensive deter mination of ever

y action.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 1 (2006). 23 inconsi stent with Federa l Rule of Civil Proce dure 56 by perm itting summ ary j udgm en t t o be e nte re d w ith out giv ing “ ap pr opr ia te w ei ght ” to “ al l the e vid en ce in the record. ” H e m aintains that Rule 56 , if properly applied, prec luded th e court fr om gr an tin g th e de fe ndants sum m ar y j udgm en t. W e nowa ddr es s th es e cl ai m s of
error . 22 A. Re es e’ s pr im ar

y arg um en t w ithr es pe ct

to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof L oc al Ru le 56. 1 is that i t c ontrave ne s th e standard f or sum m ar y j udgm en t se t f

orth in F ed er al Ru le of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e 56. T he pe rt ine nt r equir em en t of L oc al Ru le 23 56. 1 is that the r es pond en t t o asum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on m

ust f ile ar es pons e to the m ovant’s statem ent of undis puted facts which sets forth, as to each num beredReese’ s response to the D ade County defe ndants’ stateme nt of undisputed fac ts reads 24 thu s: Plaintiff contends that g enuine issues of material fa ct re main to be tried by a jury in reg ard to mate rial alleg ations of the followingpara g raphs: 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21 (opinion, not fact) , 22 (opinion, not fact) , 23 (opinion, not fact) , 29, 30 , 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 91, 92, 93, and 98. Specif

ic alleg ations of fa ct by

Plaintiff are included in the Statement of F acts in his brief a nd are here by

incorporated her ein by

ref ere nce. 24 undi sputed fact that the respondent is contestin g, “ specific citations to evidence (i nc lud ing pa ge or

para gr ap h nu m

be r) ” that su

ppor t the r es pond en t’ s ve rs ionof the f ac ts. I n th e ab se nc e of

suc h sp ec if

ic c itatio ns t o e vid en ce , the c ourt “ w ill deem each of the m ovant’s f

acts as adm itted.” L R 56.1(B) (2)(a )(2), ND Ga
. H er e, it is undi sput ed

that R ee se did

not inc lud e spe ci fi c ci ta tio ns t o ev ide nc e in h is r es pons e to the state m en t of und isp ute d f

ac ts s ubm itt ed

by H er be rt , D ep uty G ed die , and E lli s. I t i s f urthe r undi sput ed

that R ee se f

ai le d to f ile any 24
re spon se a t a ll to T ro ope r G ed die ’ s st at em en t of und isp ute d f

ac ts. N one the le ss, Re es e co nte nds that by

de em ing the de fe ndants ’ state m en ts o f undi sput ed f ac ts t o be a dm itt ed , the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y “ dis co unt ed ” or

“ ign or ed ” ev ide nc e in the r ec or d th at

it sho uld have f ull y c onsi de re d inr

uli ng o n th e de fe ndants ’ m oti ons – in cl udi ng the a ff

idavit s of Caro l R ee se , Ma c Cr ai g, and A m an daH igd on. W e be ginour

ana ly sis by

e xa m ini ng the loc al r

ule
. Auth or iz ed

by 2828 U.S.C. § 2071(a) provide s that “[t] he Supreme Court and all cour ts established by 25 Act of Cong ress may

from time to time prescr ibe rules f or the c onduct of their busine ss. Such rules shall be c onsistent with Acts of Congr ess and r ules of pra ctice a

nd proce dure pr escr ibed under” 28 U.S.C. § 2072. L ocal r ules “a re e ffe ctive ‘unle ss modified or abr og ated by the judicial c ounc il o f t

he re le va nt c ir c uit .’ ” B ro wn

v. Cr awf or d Co unty , 9 60 F .2 d 1 00 2, 10 09 n. 10 (1 1th Cir. 1992) (quoting28 U.S.C. § 2071(c)(1) ). 25 U . S. C. § 20 71( a) , loc al r ule s ge ne ra lly

r ef le ct the c ourts’ tr ad iti ona l “ au tho ri ty to 25
m an ag e the ir

ow n a ff ai rs so a s to a ch ie ve the or de rl y and e xpe dit iou s di spos iti on of cases. ” Se e H offm an-L a Roche, Inc. v. S perling, 493 U. S. 165, 172– 73, 110 S. Ct . 48 2, 4 87 –8 8, 1 07 L. Ed. 2d48 0 (1 98 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Specifica lly , L ocal Rule 56.1 protects j udicial resources by “ m ak[ing] the parties organize the evidence rather than leaving the bu rden upon the district judge. ” A lsi na -O rt iz v. L ab oy , 400 F . 3d 7 7, 80 ( 1st Ci r. 200 5) ( re fe rr ing to an al ogou s loc al r ule ); se e al so L ibe l v. A dve nture L an ds o f A m er ic a, I nc . , 482 F . 3d 1 028, 1032 ( 8thCi r. 200 7) ( “ Co urts h av e ne ith er the duty nor the ti m e to i nve sti ga te the
re co rd in se ar chof

an un ide nti fi ed

ge nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t t o su ppor t a c la im
or de fe nse . ”)
. T he r

ule a lso str eam lin es the r es olu tio n of sum m ar y j udgm en t
m oti ons by

“ fo cu s[ ing ] the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a tte nti on o n w ha t i s, and wha t i s no t, ge nui ne ly c ontro ve rt ed
. ” Mari an i- Co lonv. D ep ’ t of H om el an d S ec . , 511 F . 3d 21 6, 2 19 (1s t Ci r. 20 07 ). The “ deem ing order” authorized by Loca l Rule 56.1 is considered to be both asanc tio n f

or the part ie s and a

ba lm f or the dis tr ic t c ourt: the26

parties are given an incentiv e to conform to the rule (provided they wish to have their version of the facts considered), and the district co urt i s inany

c as e re lie ve d of

the obl igatio n to f

er re t thr oughthe re co rd
. CM I Ca pit al Mkt. I nv. , L L C v
. G onz al ez -T or o, N o. 06- 2623 , 200 8 U
. S. App. L E X IS 568 2, a t *6 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r. Mar. 18, 200 8)
. I n up hol din g th e ex er ci se of
co urts’ dis cr et ionto ap ply de em ing or de rs , our

sis te r ci rc uit s have r ep eate dly stressed the vital function of rules such as L ocal Rule 56.1, reinforc ing stern adm oni tio ns w ithr athe r co lor fu l i m ag er y . S ee , e . g. , Ca

ban H er nande z v. P hil ip Morris U SA , I nc., 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007 ) (“ Given the vital purpose that su ch
ru le s se rv e, li tig an ts i gnor e the m a t the ir pe ri l. ”) ; S m ithv. L an z, 321 F . 3d 6 80, 683 (7th Cir. 2003 ) (“ [J] udges are not like pig s, hunting for truff les buried in briefs.”) ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mark s o mi t t e d )
. We h o l dth e r u l e i n s i mi l a r l y h i g h e s t e e m. T he pr ope r co ur se in ap ply ing L oc al Ru le 56. 1 a t the sum m ar y j udgm en t sta ge is fo r a dis tr ic t c ourt t o di sr eg ar d or ign or e ev ide nc e re lie d onby the respondent –but no t cited in its respons e to the m ovant’s statem ent of undis puted fa ct s – tha t y ie lds f

ac ts c ontrary

to tho se li ste d inthe m ovant’ s st at em en t. T ha t i s, be ca use the non -m ovi ng p ar

ty ha s f ai le d to c om

ply w ithL oc al Ru le 56. 1 – the onlyperm issib le w ay

for it to establish a genuin e issue of m aterial f act at that sta ge – the c ourt ha s be fo re it the f unc tio na l ana log of

an un oppo se d m oti on f

or27

summ ary j udgm ent. Application of the deem ing order does no t, howe ver, autom atically

entitle the m ovant to summ ary j udgm ent. T his is so because under Ru le 56, the m ovi ng p ar

ty alway s bears the initial responsib ility of inform ing th e district court of the ba sis f

or it s m oti on, and i de nti fy ing tho se por tio ns o f “ the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, and a dm iss ion s on file, together with the aff idavits, if any ,” which it believes de m onstrate s th e ab se nc e of age nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t. Ce lot ex Co rp . v. Catr ett, 477 U . S. 317 , 323 , 106 S
. Ct
. 254 8, 255 3, 91 L
. E d. 2d 265 (1 986) ( quot ing F ed
. R. Ci v. P . 56( c) ) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. T he m ovant the re fo re c ont inu es to shou lde r the ini tia l burd enof pr oduc tio n inde m onstratin g the abse nc e of

any ge nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t, and the c ourt m

ust sa tis fy it se lf that the bur de n ha s be ensa tis fa ct or ily dis ch ar ge d. T ha t i s, the m ovant i s no t

“ absolve[d]
. . . of the burden of showing th at it is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law , and a Loca l Rule 56.1 statem ent is not it self a vehicle f or m aking factual assertions that are otherw ise unsupported in th e re cord.” H oltz v. Rockefe ller & Co ., 25 8 F .3d62 , 74 (2d Cir . 20 01 ); s ee al so Mari an i-C ol on , 51 1 F .3dat 2 19 n.1 (noting that the m ovant’s “uncont ested facts and oth er e videnti ary fac ts of record
m ust sti ll showthat the party

is en tit le d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t” ) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ark om itted); Alsina-O rtiz, 400 F.3d at 81 (noting that the deem ing order

“ m er el y m eans tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c ana cc ep t the m ovi ng p ar ty ’ s a lle ge dlyIn denying the motion for summary judgme nt, the district court in One Piec e of Rea l 26 Property did not scour the entire rec ord to locate a g enuine issue of materia l fac t. Rather, the district court found that a g enuine issue wa s indicated by the deposition of the def

endant’ s g irlfriend, which “wa s attache d to the g overnme nt’s motion for summary judgme nt.” United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. L ocate d at 5800 SW 74t h Ave., Miami, F la., 363 F.3d 1099, 1102 (11th Cir. 2004). On appe al, we likew ise “c onfine[d] our re view of the rec ord in [One Piece of Real Proper

ty ] t o the mater ials submitt ed by the United States in support of its summary judgme nt motion.” I d. at 1102 n.4. 28 unc ont es te d f

ac ts a s tr ue , but w he the r or

not thi s j ust if

ie s sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or the m ovin g party

depends up on the legal and factual configuration th at results”). O ur de ci sio n inU nit ed

S ta te s v. O ne P ie ce of

Re al P ro pe rty

L oc at ed a t 58 00 SW 74 th Aven ue , Mia m i, Fl or id a, 36 3 F .3d10 99 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), is in st ru ct iv e. Inthat c as e, w e he ld i n th e co nte xt o f anuno ppos ed m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t that “ the district court cannot base the entry of sum m ary j udgm ent on the m ere fact that the m oti on w as uno ppos ed , but , r athe r, m ust c onsi de r the m er its of

the
m oti on. ” I d. a t 11 01. I n de sc ri bin g th ose portio ns o f the r ec or d th at ac ourt m

ust re vie w , w e expla ine d th at [t] he district court need not su a sponte review a ll of the evidentiary m aterials on file at the tim e the m otion is granted, but m ust ensu re that the m oti on i tse lf

is supp orte d by

e vid entiary

m at er ia ls. A t the le as t, the dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust r ev ie wa ll of

the e vid en tiary

m at er ia ls subm itt ed in supp ort of

the m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. Id . a t1 1 0 1

– 0 2 (c i t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Si m i l ar l y, af t erd ee m i n g th e mov an t ’s 26 state m en t of

und isp ute d f

ac ts t o be a dm itt ed

pur suant t o L oc al Ru le 56. 1, the dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust the n r ev ie wthe m ovant’ s c itatio ns t o th e re co rd to “ de te rm ine ifWe note the exist ence of tension betwe en Rule 56 and L ocal Rule 56.1(B )(2) (a) (3), 27 wh ic h p ro vid e s th at “ [t]he c ourt wi ll d e e m th e mov ant’ s c itatio ns su pp or tiv e of its fa c ts unle ss the re spondent specif

ically informs the cour

t to the contrar

y in the response .” To the e x tent that the local r ule per mits t he district cour

t to gr ant summary

judgme nt without first reviewingthe materia ls submit ted with the motion to ensure that the motion is properly supported, the loca l rule is void by

virtue of c onflict with Rule 56. See One Piec e of Rea l Prop., 363 F.3d at 1103 n.6 (discussinganalog ous local rule in the Souther n District of F lorida). 29 the re is, ind ee d, no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t. ” S ee id. a t 11 03 n
. 6. T hus ap pli ed , L oc al Ru le 56. 1 is not in co nf lic t w ithRu le 56. 27 In th e i n s t an tca s e, h o we v er , t h er e a re two p as s ag es i n th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s dis posi tiv e or de r w hic h gi ve sig nif ic an t c au se f

or c onc er n. T he f ir st p as sa ge ind ic at es that the court exam ined the affidavits of Mac C raig and Car ol Reese. In their aff idavits, Craig and Ree se state that all four of the law en fo rc em en t of

fi ce rs pun ch ed

and k ic ke d th e pla int if

f w hil e al l f

our of the office rs w ere on top of him
. How ever, on this point the court ga ve the a ff

idavit s of Cr ai g and R ee se li ttl e w ei ght be ca use the plaintiff did no t properly dispu te the Statem ent of Undisputed Mate ri al F ac ts s ubm itt ed by the D ad e Co unty

de fe ndants and [T rooper] Ge ddie. Ree se , 20 06 W L 18 92 02 6, at *3 n.8 (em ph as is ad de d)
. T he se co nd p as sa ge c onc er ns the de fe ndants ’ obj ec tio ns t o th e af fi da vit s of Ma c Cr ai g, A m an daH igd on, and C ar ol R ee se . D ef en dants arg ue d th at

the se af fi da vit s “ shou ld b e dis re gard ed be ca use the se ind ivi dua ls s ubm itt ed inc onsi ste ntSpe c if ic a lly , th e de fe nd ants c onte nd e d th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld s tr ike the a ff

ida vit s 28 of Craig , Hig don, and Carol Ree se as sham affidavits under the rule of Va n T. J unkins and Associates, Inc. v. U.S. Industries, Inc., 736 F .2d 656, 657 (11th Cir. 1984) (“ When a par ty has g iven clea

r answe rs to unambiguous questions which neg ate the e x istence of any g enuine issue of mate ri a l f a c t, t hat pa rt y c ann ot t he re a ft e r c re ate su c h a

n is su e wi th a

n a ff ida vit tha t me re ly contra dicts, without ex planation, pre viously g iven clea

r testimony .”); see also L ane v. Ce lotex Corp., 782 F.2d 1526, 1532 ( 11th Cir. 1986) (construingVan T. Junkins t o require inhere nt inconsistency

in the form of c lear

and unambiguous deposition testim ony and a subse quent aff idavit that “contra dicts, without ex planation,” suc h testimony); Tippens v. Celotex C orp., 805 F .2 d 9 49 , 9 55 (1 1th

Cir . 1 98 6) (H ill , J., sp e c ia lly c on c ur ri ng ) ( “ Th e L ane de c isi on dr a sti c a lly limit s this court’s holding in [Van T. Junkins ].”). The district cour t denied the motion to strike the af fidavits as complete shams, and expressly “examined and use d these a ffidavits.” Ree se, 20 06 WL18 92 02 6, at *6 . We fu rt he r n ote that Cr a ig , H ig do n, and Caro l Re e se are no t pa

rt ie s to this lawsuit, as we have never square ly addre ssed whethe r, and in what circumstanc es, a district court may disreg ard the aff

idavit of a non-pa

rty that is inherently

inconsistent with deposition testimony g iven by the non-pa

rty previously

in the same c ase. See L ane, 782 F .2d at 1531 (“[W] e would be una

ble, abse nt gr eat tre pidation, to affirm a simil ar f inding [that a contra dictory aff idavit constitutes a sham] with respect to a disintere sted witness’ contr adictory aff idavit.”). Mo re ov e r, we wo uld

be re luc tant t o d isr e g ard

an a ff ida vit of a wi tne ss, wh e the r o r n ot a pa rt y in the ca se, on the ground that it is inconsistent with t estimony the witness g ave in a

nother proce eding
. 30 testim ony at the plaintiff’ s crim inal trial.” Id. at *6. Ree se m aintained that 28

“ the se ind ivi dua ls’ pr ior

te sti m ony

to the e xte nt tha t i t i s in co nsi ste nt g oe s to the
w ei ght of the e vid en ce , r athe r than it s a dm iss ibi lity . ” I d. T he c ourt “ ag re e[ d] w ith the plaintiff. T herefor e, the court exam ined and us ed these aff idavits. How ever, to the extent that th ese af fidavits contradicted the sworn testim ony given at [R ee se ’ s c ri m ina l] tr ia l, the c ourt di sr eg ar de d th e af fi da vit te sti m ony . ” I d. (em ph as is ad de d)
. Wha t the se pa ssa ge s c le ar ly ind ic at e is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t he wto the e vid en tiary

li ne dr awn by

L oc al Ru le 56. 1 by

f oc usi ng s ole ly

on the31

de fe ndants ’ r ec or d c itatio ns and d isr eg ar din g th e m at er ia ls s ubm itt ed by Re es e that wer e contrary

to the defendants’ statem ent of undis puted facts. P ut anoth er w ay , the c ourt e sse nti al ly ove rl ooke d R ee se ’ s no nc om pli an ce w ithL oc al Ru le 56. 1 – whic h it

ha d br oa d di sc re tio n to do – and tre at ed

the Cr ai g, H igd on, and Re es e af fi da vit s a s e vid en ce of

suf fi ci en t pr oba tiv e va lue to cr oss the thr es hol d of adm iss ibi lity . B y

opt ing not

to de em the de fe ndants ’ state m en t of und isp ute d f

ac ts as a dm itt ed , how ev er , the c ourt i m pli ci tly c hose to ba se it s de ci sio n ona ll of the
ev ide nti ar

y m at er ia ls i n th e re co rd

on s um m ar y j udgm en t. S ee T ipt on v . Be rg ro hr GMB H- Siegen, 965 F.2d 994 , 998 (11th Cir. 1992) (“ In oppos ing su m m ary j udgm en t, the non m ovi ng p ar ty m ay a va il its el f of

a ll fa ct s and j ust if

ia ble inf er en ce s inthe r ec or d take n a s aw hol e. ”) ; T ipp en s v. Ce lot ex Co rp . , 805 F . 2d 949, 952 ( 11th C ir
. 198 6) ( “ T he D istri ct Co urt sh al l c onsi de r al l e vid en ce in the
re co rd w he n r ev ie w ing am oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t – ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, int er ro ga tor ie s, a ff

idavit s, e tc . – and c anonl y gr an t sum

m ar y j udgm en t i f everything in the record .
. . dem onstrates that no genuine iss ue of m aterial f act exists.”) ( internal quotatio n m arks om itted); Holtz, 258 F.3d at 73 (holdin g that

“ w hil e a co urt i s no t r equir ed to co nsi de r w ha t the part ie s f ai l t o po int

out in the ir L oc al Ru le 56. 1 st at em en ts, it m ay in its dis cr et ionopt

to co nduc t an a ssi duou s re vie wof the r ec or d e ve n w he re one of the part ie s ha s f

ai le d to f ile suc h aWe do not, of course , question the district court’s de cision to disreg ard the aff idavits of 29 Craigand Carol Ree se to the extent that they contained ina dmissibl e hea rsay . Macuba

v. DeB oer, 193 F .3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ The g ener al rule is that inadmissible hear say cannot be considere d on a motion for summary judgme nt.”) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). 32 statem ent”) (inter

nal quot ation m arks and citations om itted). T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e rr or

c om poun ds i tse lf

a t this poi nt, f

or havin g f ound that the thr ee a ff

idavit s w er e adm iss ibl e, it w as not f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o dis co unt or dis re gard

the m a t the sum

m ar y j udgm ent st ag e ba se d onit s a sse ssm en t of the quality

of the evidence. See Anderson v. L iberty Lobby , I nc., 477 U.S
. 29 242, 255 , 106 S
. Ct
. 250 5, 251 3, 91 L
. E d. 2d 2 02 ( 1986 ) (“ Cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio ns, the w ei ghi ng o f the e vid en ce , and the dr aw ing of le git im at e inf er en ce s f ro m the f ac ts are j ur

y f unc tio ns, not

tho se of aj udge , w he the r he is ruling on a m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent or for a

directed verdict. T he evidence of the non m ovant i s to be be lie ve d, and a ll j ust if ia ble inf er en ce s are to be dr awn in his f av or . ”) ; L an e v. Ce lot ex Co rp . , 782 F . 2d 1 526, 152 8 ( 11th C ir
. 198 6) ( “ T he district court m

ust no t resolve fac tual disp utes by we ighin g conflicting evi dence, since it is the provin ce of the j ury to assess the probativ e value of the evidence. ”) (c itatio n om itt ed ). Y et

thi s is pr ec ise ly

w ha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppe ar s to have done by giv ing “ little w ei ght ” to the a ff idavit s of Ma c Cr ai g and C ar ol R ee se to the e xte nt tha t the y

“ state that a ll fo ur

of the lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs pun ch ed

and33

kic ke d th e pla int if

f w hil e al l f

our of the of fi ce rs w er e on t op o f him , ” an d by

“ dis re gard [i ng] the a ff

idavit te sti m ony ” of

Ma c Cr ai g, A m an da

H igd on, and C ar ol Re es e to the e xte nt tha t su chte sti m ony w as ( in the c ourt’ s vi ew ) co ntr ad ic te d by their prior testim ony

at Ree se’ s crim inal trial. Such cre dibil ity determ ination s are fo r th e jury. Insum , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to r ev ie wthe f

ull r ec or d on
sum m ar y j udgm en t and b y

f ai lin g to c onstru e the f

ac ts and m ak e al l r ea sona ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty

c hoi ce s inf

av or of the non -m ovi ng p ar

ty . T ha t i s,

“ [e ] ve n th oughthe ‘ fa ct s, ’ a s a cc ep te d a t the sum m ar y j udgm en t st ag e of

the pr oc ee din gs, m ay

not be the ‘ ac tua l’ f

ac ts o f the c as e, our

ana ly sis f

or pur pose s of
sum m ar y j udgm en t m

ust be ginw ithade sc ri pti on o f the f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost favor ab le to the pla int if

f. ” D av is v
. W ill iam s, 451 F . 3d 7 59, 763 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). W e pr oc ee d to that ana ly sis
.

B. D ef en dants are e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty if the ir c ondu ct “ doe s no t vio la te c le ar ly

e sta bli she d st at

uto ry or c onst itu tio na l r igh ts o f w hic h ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d have kno w n. ” H ar lowv. F itz ge ra ld, 457 U . S. 800 , 818 , 102 S
. Ct
. 2727 , 273 8, 73 L
. E d. 2d 3 96 ( 1982 ). “ [Q ] ua lif ie d im m uni ty appl ie s un le ss ap pli catio n of

the standard

w oul d in ev ita

bly le ad e ve ry r ea sona ble of fi ce r [i n34

defendants’ positi on] to conclud e the forc e w as unlawful. ” Post v. City of Fort La uderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993). T he f ac ts i n th is c as e, vie w ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to Re es e, do n ot supp ort the gr an t of

qua lif ie d im m uni ty f or the de fe ndants . B ec au se it is undi sputed th at they

we re e ngaged in “ discretionary functions,” see H ollom an ex re l. H oll om anv. H ar land, 370 F . 3d 1 252, 126 5 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( de fi nin g th e inquir y a s c onsi de ri ng whe the r the of fi ci al e nga ge d ina ct s “ of aty pe that f el l
w ith in the e m

plo y ee ’ s j ob r es pons ibi lit ie s” ), the bur de n sh if te d to Re es e to dem onstrate that (1) the defendants violated his feder al constitut ional or statuto ry rights, and that (2) those rights were clear ly established at the tim e they acted. L ee v. F er raro , 284 F . 3d 1 188, 119 4 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2) ; V iny ar d v. W ils on, 311 F . 3d 1340 , 1350 (11th Cir. 2002). T he f ir st que sti on w e m

ust de ci de is w he the r Re es e’ s ve rs ionof the f ac ts de m on st rat es th e u se of e xc es si ve for ce i n v io la ti on of t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t. N o to n l y d o e s “ t h e r i g h tt o mak e an arr e s to r i n v e s t i g a t o ry s t o p n e c e s s a r i l y c a rr [ y] with it the right to use so m e degree of phy sical coerc ion or threat thereof to ef fect it, ” G raha m

v. Co nnor , 490 U . S. 386 , 396 , 109 S
. Ct
. 186 5, 187 1–72 , 104 L . E d. 2d 44 3 (1989), but we a lso “ recognize that the ty pical arr est invol ves som e forc e an d i nju ry .” Ro dr ig ue z v . Farre ll , 28 0 F .3d13 41 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ).O.C.G.A. § 16-10- 24(b) pr ovides that 30 Whoever knowing ly

and willfully

resists, obstructs, or opposes a ny law 35 H ow ev er , w hil e the use of f or ce be lowade m ini m is thr es hol d or din ar ily w ill not be a ct ion ab le , se e V iny ar d, 311 F . 3d at 13 48 n
. 13 ( co lle ct ing c as es ), “ ev ende
m ini m is f or ce w ill vio la te the F ourth A m en dm en t i f the of fi ce r is n ot e nti tle d to
arre st or detain the susp ect. ” Z ivojinovich v . B arner, No. 07-1190 3, 2008 U. S. App. L E X IS 871 1, a t *3 0 ( 11th C ir
. Apr . 23, 200 8) ( pe r curi am). Whe re pr oba ble
cause or ar guable probabl e cause to ar rest existed, the question is n ot what

“ unde rl y ing int en t or

m oti va tio n” the of

fi ce rs harb or ed , Be she rs v. H ar ri son, 495 F. 3d 12 60, 1266 (11t h Cir. 2007 ), but whether the off icers’ actions wer e

“ obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble ” in l igh t of

the f ac ts and c ir cum stanc es the y f ac ed a t the tim e, “ includi ng the severity of the crim e at issue, whether the susp ect pose[d] an im m ed ia te thr eat t o th e sa fe ty of the of fi ce rs or oth er s, and whe the r he [ w as ] actively resisting arrest or attem

pting to evade arr est by

flight.” G raham , 490 U. S. at39 6, 1 09 S. Ct. at 18 72
. W e begin our inq uiry , ther efore, with the question o f w hether H erbert had probable cause or arguable probable cause to ar rest Ree se. See Le e, 284 F.3d at 1195
. U nde r G eo rg ialaw , “ [e ] xc ep t a s othe rw ise pr ovi de d in[ O
. C. G
. A
. § 16 -1 0- 24(b)] , a person who knowingly and willfully

obstructs or hin ders any

law 30enfor ceme nt office r . . . in the lawf ul discharg e of his off

icial duties by

offe ringor do ingvio le nc e to t

he pe rs on of su c h o ff ic e r o r l e g a lly

a uth or ize d p e rs on

is guil ty of a f elony and shall, upon convic tion thereof, be punished by imprisonment for no t le ss t ha n o ne no r m or e tha

n f ive y e ars . 36 enforcem ent officer

in the lawf

ul discharge of his official duties is gu ilty of a
m is de m ean or .” O.C.G.A. § 16 -1 0- 24 (a). Un de r Ree se ’s ver si on of t he fact s, we co nc lud e that no r ea sona

ble of fi ce r co uld

have be lie ve d th at

pr oba ble c au se existed to arrest Ree se for violation of O. C.G .A . § 16-10-24(a). T en m inutes had elapsed since the alleged aggressor in the dom estic violence dispu te had been handc uf fe d and p la ce d inD ep uty G ed die ’ s patr ol c ar . H er be rt w as standi ng out sid e the bui ldi ng t o pr ev en t othe rs f ro m e nte ri ng the apartm en t whe re D ep uty G ed die w as int er

vie w ing the a lle ge d vi ct im
. A ft er appr oa ch ing H er

be rt , Re es e patiently wa ited for a f

ewm inutes before m aking hi s request that the law
en fo rc em en t ve hic le s be m ove d. H e the n r eque ste d to spe ak w iththe of

fi ce r in ch arg e. Thro ug ho ut th is ex ch an ge , Rees e m ai nt ai ne d acal m vo ic e an d d em ean or . Ree se di d n ot im

pe de or h in de r Herb ertin th e p erfo rm an ce o f hi s p ol ic e dut ie s. Se e Sk op v . Ci ty

of A tlanta , 485 F . 3d 1 130, 113 8–39 ( 11th C ir
. 200 7)
. T houg h Re es e m ay

have r ef use d to obe y

H er be rt ’ s or de r to l eave the sc en e by a tte m pti ng to approach Tr ooper Geddie, arr est for obstruction canno t be predicated upon su ch
a re fu sa l t o ob ey

“ a co m m an d to c le ar

the ge ne ra l are a en tir el y

be y ond the z one ofThe de fenda nts argue that the f

act that the state trial cour t denied Ree se’s motion for a 31 direc ted ver dict of ac quittal at the close of Re ese’ s criminal trial for misdemeanor obstruc tion “ c on sti tut e s a

bin din gde te rm inatio n o f p ro ba ble c a us e fo r P la int if

f’ s a rr e st. ” Th e argume nt i s without merit. See Bates v. Har vey , 518 F.3d 1233, 1241 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (findingneither Roo ke r- F e ldm an d oc tr ine no r i ssu e pr e c lus ion ba rr e d p la int if

f f ro m li tig atin gpr ob a

ble c a us e issue). 37 pol ic e ope ratio n, ” w hic h, in the c ir cum stanc es de sc ri be d, w as c le ar ly “ anove rl y br oa d and unr ea sona

ble de m an d th at

e xc ee d[ ed ] r ea sona

ble lawe nf

or ce m en t pr oc ed ur e an d ne ed s. ” S ee W oodw ar d v. G ray , 527 S
. E . 2d 5 95, 599 ( G a. Ct
. App. 2000 ); se e al so i d. a t 59 8 ( “ T o ob str uc t, r es ist , or

opp ose f or pur pose of obstru ct ing an of

fi ce r im pli es f or ci ble r es ist an ce and d oe s no t m ean th e re fu sa l t o m er el y obe y the pol ic e of

fi ce r’ s c om

m an d to m ove . . . so tha t the pol ic e co uld pe rf orm the ir dut ie s un im

pe de d. F or

spe ec h to r ise to the le ve l of obs tr uc tio n, it
m ust be reasonably

interpreted to be a threat of violence to the officer, which
w oul d am ount

to obstru ct ionor

hin dr an ce . ”) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); c f. D av is, 451 F. 3d at 76 7 ( ap ply ing F lor ida lawand h old ing that “ [n ] ei the r anow ne r’ s si m ple inquir y a s to w hy

of fi ce rs are pr es en t onhis pr ope rty nor ape rs on’ s a tte m

pt t o bring a dangerous si tuation to the officer ’ s attention can be construed as obstru ct ionof

j ust ic e or dis or de rl y

c ondu ct . N or

c anac iti ze n be pr ec lud ed by the thr eat of arr es t f ro m a ski ng t o sp eak to an of

fi ce r’ s su pe rv iso r or

f ro m a ski ng f or anof fi ce r’ s ba dge num

be r. T hose inquir ie s li ke w ise do n ot c onst itu te obs tr uc tio n of j ustice or disorderly

conduct.”). 31At this stage , we c redit Reese ’s ver sion of the fa cts over T rooper Geddie’ s claims that 32 he did no t ha ve any oth e r p hy sic a l c onta c t w ithRe e se and that he re a so na

bly be lie ve d s ome de g re e of fo rc e wa s n e c e ssa

ry in l ig ht o f h is i g no ra

nc e of the re a so n f

or arr e sti ngRe e se and

his a c tiv e re sis tanc e . A c c or din gto t he a ff ida vit s o f M a c Cr a igand

Caro l Re e se , a ll f

our d e fe nd ants – Trooper Geddie inc luded – wer e on top of Ree se, kickingand beating him. Crosby v. Monroe County , 394 F.3d 1328, 1334 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (findingthat a re asonable office r could have conclude d that it was nec essar y to put his foot on the face of a suspe cted shooter who had be en car rying a shotgun, be cause the suspect ha d not been c ooperative and could have bee n car rying other c oncea led wea

pons), invoked by

the def endants, is thus fac tually

distinguishable. 38 Inthe abse nc e of

pr oba ble c au se , H er

be rt w as not j ust if ie d inusi ng any fo rc e a g ai n s tRe es e. Ye tas Re es e t u rn ed t o wa l kt o wa rdTr o o p erGe d d i e’s vehicle, H erbert gr abbed his arm , slung him against a wa ll in a choke hold , struck him , and the n th re whim

to the gr ound
. F ro m

the pe rs pe ct ive of

r ea sona ble officer s in the defendants’ positions , including th ose who claim ed they did no t see or he ar howRe es e w as arr es te d, the f or ce that w as sub se que ntl y use d a ga ins t Re es e w as a lso unr ea sona ble
. Whil e Re es e lay

f ac e down onthe gr ound , a ll fo ur defendants piled on top of him and began kickin g and beating h im
. One or m ore of the defendants continu ed twisting his arm behind h is back despite his repeated
scream s that they

we re bre aking hi s arm . Cf. Davis, 451 F.3d at 768. T rooper Ge ddie then appl ied a pressure point techniqu e on his neck. A fter R eese’ s left 32
arm ha d b een ha nd cu ffed , Depu ty G ed di e th en pe pp er-s pr ay edRees e in th e fac e. At no point was Ree se fighting back or attem pting to escape; “ indeed, [he] wa s ch ar ge d w ithnon vio le ntl y r es ist ing arr es t. ” S ee K ing v. Re ap , N o. 06- 1561 6,39

20 08 U.S. App . LEXIS 51 70 , at * 7 (1 1t h C ir. M ar. 7 , 20 08 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). T he G raha m

f ac tor s, a s a

ppl ie d to Re es e’ s ve rs ionof the f ac ts, w ei gh de ci siv el y

in Re es e’ s f

av or . T he c ri m e of

m isd em eanor

obs tr uc tio n is ac ri m e of

“ m ino r se ve ri ty ” fo r w hic h le ss f or ce is ge ne ra lly

appr opr ia te . S ee V iny ar d, 311 F. 3d at 13 48–4 9. I n vi ewof the f ac t tha t R ee se w as ly ing f ac e down onthe ground , w as not sus pected of having comm itted a serious crim e, did no t pose an im m ed ia te thr eat of

harm to an y one , and w as not

a ct ive ly r es ist ing or

e va din g ar re st, the de fe ndants ’ use of f or ce w as aw hol ly

dis pr opor

tio na te r es pons e to the situatio n. S ee id. at 1348 (“ Courts have consis tently concluded that us ing pepp er spray is excessive force in cases wher e the cr im e is a m inor infraction, the ar restee sur re nde rs , is se cure d, and i s no t a ct ing vio le ntl y , and the re is no thr eat t o th e officer s or any one else.” ). It is be y ond que sti on tha t the laww as “ cl earl y e sta bli she d” so a s to giv e the d ef en d an t s fa i r w arn i n g th at th ei r a ct i o n s i n s u ch ci rc u m s t an ce s v i o l at ed Re es e’s Fo urth A m en dm en t r igh ts. N o part ic ulari ze d, pr ee xis tin g c as e laww as ne ed ed to inform them that an officer

is not entit led to qualified imm unitywher e his condu ct goes “ so far bey ond th e hazy border betwe en excessive and acce ptable force that [he knows that he is] violatin g the Consti tutio n.” Priester v. City of Riviera Beac h, 208 F.3d 919, 926–2 7 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation m arks om itted);Ev e n if pa rt ic ula ri zed c a se law w e re ne c e ssa

ry in t his c onte xt, w e have no dif fi c ult y 33 fi nd ingthat by

Se pte mbe r 2 00 3, pr e vio us c a se law c le arl y e sta bli sh e d th at of

fi c e rs may

no t us e excessive forc e ag ainst a non-r esisting suspec t who has alre ady been subdue d. See Ha dley v. Gutierre z, No. 06-12605, 2008 U.S. App. L EXI S 9695, at *20–21 (11th Cir. May 6, 2008) (c iting case s, and holdingthat “[a]pply ing the excessive forc e standa rd would inevitably

lead e very rea sonable off

icer . . . to conclude that the forc e used he re – punc hing a non-re sisting cr iminal suspect for

no appar ent re ason other tha n malice – is not protec ted by our constitution.”) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). 40 se e al so V iny ar d, 311 F . 3d at 13 50 & n. 18 ( co lle ct ing c as es ). R ee se ’ s ve rs ionof 33 the f ac ts d em onstrate s abe at ing that “ fa lls w ith in ‘ the c or e of w ha t the F ourth Am endm ent prohibi ts’ : a severe beating of a restra ined, non-resisting su spect.” K ing , 200 8 U
. S. App. L E X IS 517 0, a t *7
. A cc or din gly , de fe ndants are not e n t i t l e dt o s u mm a ry ju d g men to n th e g r o u n d o f qu a l i f i e di mm u n i t y. IV. Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the de nia l of

Re es e’ s m oti on f

or le av e to f ile d ase co nd am en de d c om pla int and the dis al low an ce of

the K el le r af

fi da vit , but r ev er se the sum

m ar y j udgm en t gr an te d to the de fe ndants on the ba sis of qu a l i f i e di mm un i t y. A FF IRME D , in part , and RE V E RS E D , in part .