FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 4 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1660 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Docket N o. 03-00227 -CV -O RL -18-KR S RAMON A. MERCADO, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CITY OF ORLANDO, a m uni ci pa l c or

por at iona nd p oli tic al sub div isi on of the State of Florida, RA MF IS P A D IL L A , O ff ic er , ind ivi dua lly

a nd a s an ag en t and e m

plo y ee of the Ci ty of O rl an do an d Orl an do Po li ce Dep art m en t, et al., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida (M ay 4 , 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A a nd C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: This is the second tim e w e have considered an appeal of this case. In M er ca do v

. Ci tyof O rla ndo , 407 F. 3d 11 52 (11th Cir. 2005 ) ( M er ca do I ), we af fi rm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the de fe ndants Ci ty of O rl an do and P oli ce O ff

ic er s R am fi s P ad ill a (“ Pa dil la ”) a nd C hr ist ina Rouse (“ Rouse”) on all claim s except the issue of qualified imm unitywith re spect to P ad ill a. A ft er

r em an d, the c as e pr oc ee de d to tr ia l onthe sol e re m ai nin g is sue of whether Padilla violated appellant Ram on A. Merc ado’ s (“ Merca do”) rights un der the F ourth A m en dm en t t o th e U nit ed S tate s C onst itu tio n by

sho oti ng M er ca do i n the head with a S age SL 6 launcher. The j ury found in favor of Padilla. Inthi s a ppe al , Me rc ad o c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur y ins tr uc tio n
num be r 9 w hic h in str

uc te d th e j ur

y a s f oll ow s: T he c ourt i nstru ct s y ou a s am atte r of lawthat un le ss the de fe ndant, Padilla, intended to aim

and shoo t the plaintiff, Me rcado, in the head usi ng the S ag e la

unc he r, the n de fe ndant P ad ill a’ s a ct s di d no t vi ola te pla int if f, Me rc ad o’ s r igh ts unde r the F ourth A m en dm en t of the Co nst itu tio n. A c ha lle nge to a j ur

y ins tr uc tio n pr es en ts a

que sti on o f lawsub

j ec t t o de novo
rev ie w. U

nit ed Sta tes v . T

ok ars , 95 F.3d 15 20 , 15 31 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Inthi s c as e, the r ec or d de m onstrate s th at a t the ti m e of

the inc ide nt i n questio n, Pa dilla found him self in the kitchen of Merca do’s a partm ent, w hich was3

a sm all confined area , f

aced w ith a person who had a telephone cord wra pped
ar ound his ne ck w hil e tur nin g bl ue a nd h old ing akni fe in both hands w hil e po in ti ng it at h is own ch es t. Pad il la rep eat ed ly tol d M erca do to pu t t he kn ife do wn bu t M erca do ig no redhi s co m m an ds
. Padilla w as obvio usly

confronted with an urgent and critical situation that
re qui re d an im

m ed ia te r es pons e. A sid e fr om the obv iou s and i m

m ed ia te thr ea t of sui ci de , P ad ill a ha d be entr ai ne d to be a w ar e tha t a pe rs on w ho i s su ic ida l a lso p o s es a t h re at t o b e h o m i ci d al b y tu rn i n g t h e w eap o n o n o t h er s at a momen t ’s not ic e. P ad ill a re as ona

bly be lie ve d th at

unl es s im

m ed ia te a ct ionw as take n to disarm Merc ado and place him

in custod y , he would take his own life, or harm oth er s, inc lud ing the of

fi ce rs w ho w er e pr es en t. Pa dil laha d be entr ai ne d inthe use of the im pa ct w ea pon known a s th e Sa ge SL 6 la unc he r. T his w ea

pon fi re s ar

ubbe r ba tonw hic h m ak es im pa ct w iththe subj ec t’ s bo dy

c au sin g le ss- than- le tha l pa in and a ff or ds the of

fi ce rs the oppo rt uni ty to m ove in an d ga in c om pli an ce a nd c ontro l ov er

the sub j ec t. T he
re co rd de m onstrate s th at

a t the ti m e Pa dil laf

ir ed the S ag e SL 6, he did

it not to inflict deadly

force , but to gain Mercado’ s com pliance. A fter M erca do was struck
w iththe r ubbe r ba ton , he dr oppe d th e kni fe a nd the of fi ce rs w er e ab le to re str ai n4

him a nd p ut h an dc uf

fs on h im
. H e w as the n take n ou t of his apa rtm en t and transported to a hosp ital by am bulance. Af ter re viewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y in ac co rd an ce w ithour

r uli ng i n M er ca do I
. Moreover, the instruction wa s consist ent with Suprem e Court pr ec ed en t be ca

use the S upr em e Co urt ha s lo ng h el d th at af ed er al c au se of

a ct ion
un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 d oe s n ot ex te nd to co nd uc t t ha t i s m erel y ne gl ig en t. See Dan ie ls v. W

il li ams , 474 U
. S. 327 , 328 , 106 S
. Ct
. 662 , 663 ( 1986 ) (c onc lud ing that the Due P rocess Clause is not im plicated by

a negligent act of an offic ial causing un intended lo ss of or injury to life, liberty , or property ). For the above-stated re asons, we aff irm the district court’ s judgm ent entered on the jury ’ s verdict in favor of Pa dilla. AFFIRMED.