FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 7, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10856

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -013 50 -C V -M H S -1 M I L D R E D R O B I N S O N , I n d iv id u a lly , a nd on be ha l f

of a nd a s ne xtf

r i e nd t o S t e ve n W a lte r s , J r ., S e a n P a u l W a lte r s , A n th o n y W a lte r s , a n d J a b h a r i W a lte r s , m in o rc h ild r e n o f d e c e d e n t, S te v e n W a lte r s , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D A N I E L A R R U G U E T A , B R I A N M . S U L L I V A N , K E V I N H A R T M A N N , R I C K V A Z Q U E Z , D O N A L D L . T I T U S , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 7, 2005)2

B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e T JO F L A T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: P l ai n t i ff-ap p el l an tM i l d red R o b i n so n , as n ex t -o f-k i n o f S t ev en W al t ers, d ec ea se d , an d o n b eh alf o f W alters ’s m in o r c h il d re n , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof D a ni e l A rrugue t a , a l a w e nf or c e m e nt of f i c e r , i n he ra c t i on a l l e gi ng us e of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e r e s ul t i ng i n W a l t e r s ’ s de a th. I . T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory a r e a s f ol l ow s . M e m be r s of

the At l a n t a Hi g h I n t e n s i ty Dru g T r a f f i c k i n g Ar e a ( “ HI DT A” ) T a s k F o r c e a rr e s t e d two i nd i vi du al s on Jun e 6, 20 01 neara parki ng l oton P on ce de L eon A venu e ( “ P on ce ”) i n A t l a nt a f

ors e l l i ng ni ne ounc e s of he r oi n t o a n unde r c ove ra ge nt . O ne of the s u s p e c ts a g r e e d to c o o p e r a te b y a s s is tin g th e a g e n ts in ap p r e h e n d in g h is s u p p lie r s . H e a rr a nge d t o m e e thi s s uppl i e r s l a t e rtha tda y , unde rthe pr e t e ns e of de l i ve r i ng th e f u n d s h e r e c e iv e d f

r o m th e s a le o f

h e r o in . T hataf t erno on , the H ID T A agent s gathere d b y ado ug hn utshop on P on ce w here the del i very w as t o t ake pl ac e. T he coop er at i ng suspec ti dent i fi ed a F ord E s c o r t c a rry in g th r e e p a s s e n g e r s a s th e v e h ic le in w h ic h h is s u p p lie r s w e r e d r iv in g . A rrugue t a , a s pe c i a l a ge nte m pl oy e d by the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e r vi c e , f

ol l ow e d the E s c or ti n a n unm a r ke d ve hi c l e . T he E s c or tdr ove pa s ttheThe district cour t judgefound, for

the purposes of

the qualified immunity

analysis, that 1 Walterswa s sittingbe tw e e n th edriver’ s a nd pa sseng e r’ s se at. Thema jority of thewi tne sse s, however, plac ed him direc tly in the driver’ s seat. One mile equals 5,280 feet. There a re 3,600 se conds in an hour. 5,280 f t. ÷ 3,600 s. = 2 1.47 ft./s. I f the vehicle could move 4 f eet at the most towards him beforehe wa s crushe d, then he had 2.72 se conds (i.e. 4 f t. ÷ 1.47 ft./s. = 2.72 s.) to react.

3 do ug hn utshop , m ade aU -turn, and t hen st op ped t hree t o fou r f ee tbehi nd a c i vi l i an c a rw a i t i ng a ta tr a f

f i c l i ghton the c orne rof P onc e a nd A r gonne A ve nue . T he dr i ve rof the ve hi c l e a nd apa s s e nge rthe n e xi t e d the E s c or ta nd be ga n w a l ki ng t ow ar d the do ug hn utshop . A l l un i t s c on verged up on them . B oth suspect s w er e a rr e s te d p r o m p tly th e r e a f te r . W al t er s, the re m ai ni ng suspec tw ho apparent l y had al so exi t ed the E sc ort and t hen re-e nt er ed, w as si tt i ng som ew here i n b etw ee n the fr on tri gh tpass enger s e a ta nd the dr i ve r ’ s s e a t . A rrugue t a ha d e xi t e d hi s c a ra nd s t ood i n be tw e e n the 1 E sc ortand t he ca r i n frontof i t . T he di st ance betw ee n A rrug uet a a nd the E sc ort w as o n l y tw o t o fo u r feetatth e m o st . A rru g u et a p o i n t ed h i s g u n atW al t ers, verbal l y i dent i fi ed hi m se l f a s “ P ol i ce , ” a nd t ol d h i m t o p uthi s hands up . W al t er s m a de e y e c ont a c tw i th A rrugue t a , butde f i e d the or de rt o r a i s e hi s ha nds . I ns t e a d, W a lte r s g r in n e d a t A rru g u e ta a s th e E s c o r t s lo w ly b e g a n to m o v e f o rw a r d a t a lik e ly s p e e d o f

a r o u n d o n e to tw o m ile s p e rh o u r . T h u s , A rru g u e ta h a d , a t m o s t, 2 .7 2 s e c o n d s to r e a c t b e f o r e g e ttin g c ru s h e d b e tw e e n th e tw o c a r s . A s A rru g u e ta 2 tr i e d t o ge toutof

the w a y of

the m ovi ng c a r , he s hotW a l t e r s thr ough theThis appeal only concerns Count Iof the c omplaint. CountIIalleg ed that Ar rugueta a nd 3 theoth e r H IDTA ag e ntsc on sp ire d todepriveWaltersof hisF ourt h Amendment rights . Co unts IIIand IV asser

ted claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ag ainst the HIDTA ag ents who were e mpl oye d b y

stateand loc al enf orc e ment ag e nc ie s. CountsV, VI , a nd VII a ssert e d c laims ag ainst the United States under the Fe deral Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq . The district court either

dismiss ed or grante d summary judgment in favor of

the def endants on all of these c ounts. 4 w i nd shi el d. T he E sc ortst op ped i m m edi at el y there af t er . W al t er s w as then r e m o v e d f

r o m th e c a ra n d g iv e n m e d ic a l a tte n tio n . T h e p a r a m e d ic s w e r e n o t ab le to s a v e h im . W al t er s’ s m other, M i l dred R ob i nson , brou gh tsui ti n the di stri ctcourtas W alters ’s n ex t-o f- k in an d o n b eh alf o f W alters ’s m in o r c h il d re n . R o b in so n ’s com pl ai ntcont ai ned seven di ff er entC ou nt s. C ou ntI of the com pl ai ntal l eged that A rrugue t a vi ol a t e d W a l t e r s ’ s F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by unr e a s ona bl y us i ng de a dl y f or c e i n vi ol a t i on of

B iv e n s v . S ix U

n ko w n A g e n ts , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 , 9 1 S .C t. 1999 ( 1971) . A rrugue t a m ove d f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o C ountI a r gui ng the 3 c la im w a s b a rr e d o n q u a lif ie d im m u n ity g r o u n d s . See H a r lo w v . F itz

g e r a ld , 457 U . S . 80 0, 10 2 S . C t . 27 27 , 73 L . E d. 2d 39 6 (19 82 ). T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed A rru g u e ta ’s m o tio n . R o b in s o n n o w ap p e a ls . II. A . Stan da rd of

R ev i ew W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , dr a w i ng a ll in f e r e n c e s in f

a v o ro f R o b in s o n . Korm an v. H B CFla. , Inc. , 182 F . 3d 1291,5

1 2 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . B . G r a n t o

f Q u a lifie d

I m m u n ity I n Sa u c ie rv . Ka tz , 533 U . S . 194, 201, 121 S . C t . 2151, 2156, 150 L . E d. 2d 27 2 (20 01 ), the S up re m e C ou rtse tou ta tw o-st ep anal ys i s t o d et erm i ne w hether a n of f i c e ri s e l i gi bl e f

orqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . T he f

i r s ts t e p i s t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe f a c t s “ [ t ] a ke n i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the pa r ty a s s e r t i ng the i nj ur y , . . . s how the offi ce r’ s c on du ctvi ol at ed a c on st i tut i on al ri gh t [. ] ” I d. I f the c onduc tdi d not vi ol a t e a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght , the i nqui ry e nds the r e . I f the c onduc tvi ol a t e d a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght , a c our tm us tm ove on t o the s e c ond s t e p a nd de t e r m i ne

“ w hether the ri gh tw as cl ea rl y e st abl i shed. ” I d. U nd erthe fi rs tst ep, the di stri ct c our tf ound tha tA rrugue t a ha d vi ol a t e d W a l t e r s ’ s F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o be fr ee fr om exce ss i ve force . T he courtfoun d, ho w ever , thatun der the se cond st ep th e r ig h t v io la te d w a s n o t c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d a n d th u s A rru g u e ta w a s e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . W e f irst ex am in e w h eth erth e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y f o u n d th at A rru g u eta’s c o n d u c t v io la te d a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r o te c ts i ndi vi dua l s f

r om “ unr e a s ona bl e ” s e i z ur e s . D e a dl y f or c e i s “ r e a s ona bl e ” f

orthe p u rp o s e s o f

th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t w h e n a n o f f ic e r“( 1 ) ‘h a s p r o b ab le c a u s e to bel i eve thatthe suspec tpo se s athrea tof se ri ou s physi ca l harm , ei ther t o the offi ce r6

ort o othe r s ’ or‘ tha the ha s c om m i tt e d a c r i m e i nvol vi ng the i nf l i c t i on or th reat en ed i n fl i ct i o n o f seri o u s p h ysi cal h arm ; ’ (2 ) reaso n ab l y b el i ev es th atth e u se of de a dl y f or c e w a s ne c e s s a ry t o pr e ve nte s c ape ; a nd ( 3) ha s gi ve n s om e w a rni ng abou tthe po ss i bl e use of deadl y f orce ; i f f ea si bl e. ” V

aughan v . C ox , 343 F . 3d 1323, 1329- 30 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng T enness ee v. G arner , 471 U . S 1, 105 S .C t. 1 6 9 4 , 8 5 L .E d .2 d 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) ; s e e a ls o C r o s b y v . Mo n r o e C o u n ty , 394 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 33 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ the ‘ re as on abl enes s’ i nq ui ry i n an excess i ve force ca se i s a n o bj ec t i ve on e: the qu es t i on i s w hether the offi ce r’ s a ct i on s a re

‘ o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e ’ i n l i g h to f th e f a c t s a n d c i r c u ms t a n c e s c o n f r o n t i n g h i m, w i tho utre gard t o h i s und er l yi ng i nt entor m ot i vat i on . ”) . T h e d i stri ctco u rtrel i ed o n th e fo l l o w i n g fact s, t ak en i n th e l i g h tm o st fa vo rabl e t o R ob i nson , i n m aki ng i t s det erm i nat i on thatA rrug uet a’ s c on du ct v io la te d th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t: ( 1 ) a t th e tim e o f th e s h o o tin g , W a lte r s w a s in b e tw e e n th e p a s s e n g e r ’s s e a t a n d th e d r iv e r ’s s e a t, ( 2 ) th e c a rw a s r o llin g s lo w ly d o w n h ill, a n d ( 3 ) A rru g u e ta c o u ld h a v e a v o id e d th e v e h ic le b y s te p p in g a s id e . T hough the f

a c t s m us tbe t a ke n i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o R obi ns on, the d e te r m in a tio n o f

r e a s o n a b le n e s s m u s t b e m a d e f r o m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

th e o f f ic e r . T he “ r e a s ona bl e ne s s ” of a pa r t i c ul a rus e of

f or c e m us tbe j udge d f

r om the pe r s pe c t i ve of

a r e a s ona bl e of

f i c e ron the s c e ne , r a the rtha n w i th the 20/ 20 vi s i on of hi nds i ght. . . T he c a l c ul us of r e a s ona bl e ne s s m us te m body a llo w a n c e f

o rth e f a c t th a t p o lic e o f

f ic e r s a r e o f

te n f o r c e d to m a k e s p lit-7

s e c o n d ju d g m e n ts

– in c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t a r e te n s e , u n c e r ta in , a n d r ap id ly evol vi ng –abo utthe am ou ntof forc e thati s nec es sa ry i n a part i cul ar s itu a tio n . Me n u e l v . C ity o

f A tla n ta , 25 F . 3d 990, 996 ( 11th C i r . 1994) , quot i ng G raha m v. C onnor , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 0 9 S .C t. 1 8 6 5 , 1 8 7 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T he l aw exi st i ng i n G eorgi a a tthe t i m e of thi s i nci denti nstruct ed thata c ar d r iv e n in a th r e a te n in g m a n n e rc a n b e c o n s id e r e d a d e a d ly w e ap o n . W e b b v . S ta te , 256 G a . A pp. 653, 654, 569 S . E d. 2d 596, 597 ( 2002) ( “ [ O ] ne w ho a i m s a m ot or ve hi c l e a ta nothe rpe r s on m a y be c onvi c t e d of a ggr a va t e d a s s a ul tr e ga r dl e s s of w h e th e rth e v ic tim s u s ta in e d a n y in ju r ie s o rw a s e v e n to u c h e d b y th e v e h ic le .” ) . F ur the r m or e , unde rG e or gi a l a w , a l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e ri s j us t i f

i e d i n us i ng d e a d ly f o r c e to p r e v e n t d e a th o rg r e a t in ju ry to h im s e lf

/h e r s e lf o rto th ir d p a r tie s . See O .C .G .A . § § 1 6 - 3 - 2 3 a n d 1 7 - 4 - 2 0 . H ere, A rru g u et a w as st an d i n g i n a n arro w sp ace b etw een th e tw o v eh i cl es, W al t er s w as di sobeyi ng A rrug uet a’ s order s t o p uthi s hands up , the E sc ortw as s udde nl y m ovi ng f

orw a r d a nd A rrugue t a ha d t o m a ke a s pl i t - s e c ond de c i s i on of w h e th e rh e c o u ld e s c ap e b e f o r e h e g o t c ru s h e d . A t th e m o s t, A rru g u e ta h a d o n ly 2. 72 se cond s t o rea ctt o w hathe perce i ved as athrea tof se ri ou s physi ca l harm fro m W al t ers. O ur prece denti nstruct s us t o t ake i nt o acc ou ntthat“ [r ] ec on si dera t i on [a ft erBrosseau is a rec ent opinion, which the district cour t judgedid not have the benefit of 4 relying upon when dec iding this ca se. 8 th e u n cert ai n ty an d th e ex ci t em en to f th e m o m en th av e p assed ] w i l l n earl y al w ays re veal thatsom ethi ng di ff er entcoul d h ave been don e i f . . . the future [ w as kn ow n] before i toccurre d. ” C a r rv . T a ta n g e lo , 33 8 F . 3d 12 59 , 12 70 (11t h C i r. 2003) . E ve n i f

i n hi nds i ghtthe f

a c t s s how tha tA rrugue t a pe rhaps c oul d ha ve es caped u nh arm ed, w e c on cl ud e thata r ea sonabl e off i ce r c ou l d h ave perc ei ved t hat W a lte r s w a s u s in g th e E s c o r t a s a d e a d ly w e ap o n . A rru g u e ta h a d p r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t W a lte r s p o s e d a th r e a t o f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l h a r m . In the ca se of B ross eau v. H au gen , – U . S . –, 125 S . C t . 596, 600, 160 L . E d. 2d 583 ( 2004) , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha ti tw a s obj e c t i ve l y r e a s ona bl e f or O f f i c e rB r os s e a u t o us e de a dl y f or c e a ga i ns ta s us pe c ti n a n a tt e m ptt o pr e ve ntthe suspec t ’ s e sc ape a nd po t ent i al harm t o o thers . H er e, A rrug uet a per ce i ved t hat W a lte r s w a s a tte m p tin g to c ru s h h im a n d e n d a n g e rh is lif e . B e c a u s e it is c o n s titu tio n a lly r e a s o n a b le f o ra n o f f ic e rto u s e d e a d ly f

o r c e w h e n a s u s p e c t is th r e a te n in g e s c ap e a n d p o s s ib le h a r m to o th e r s , it is a ls o c o n s titu tio n a lly r e a s ona bl e f

ora n of f i c e rt o us e de a dl y f

or c e w he n he ha s pr oba bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve th a t h is o w n lif

e is in p e r il. T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t A rru g u e ta is e n title d to

4 qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty und erthe fi rs tst ep of the Sa u ci er a n a ly s is . E ven t ho ug h o ur i nq ui ry ends atthe fi rs tst ep of the anal ys i s, w e not e that9

the di s tr i c tc our tw a s c orr e c ti n f i ndi ng tha t , unde rthe s e c ond s t e p, the l a w w a s not c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d , a n d th u s , A rru g u e ta is e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity u n d e rth is s te p a s w e ll. See V

aughan , 3 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 2 ; s e e al s o B r os s e au , __ U . S . __, 125 S . C t . at5 9 9 (“ Q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty sh i el d s an o ffi cer fro m su i tw h en sh e m ak es a deci si on that , even i f c on st i tut i on al l y def i ci ent , re as on abl y m i sapp re hend s the l aw go verni ng the ci rc um st ance s s he confront ed. ”) . R o b in s o n a r g u e s th a t th e la w is c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d in th is a r e a . See G arner , 47 1 U . S . at12 , 10 5 S . C t . at17 01 (“ W here the suspec tpo se s no i m m edi at e threa t t o the of f i c e ra nd no thr e a tt o othe r s , the ha r m r e s ul t i ng f r om f a i l i ng t o appr e he nd hi m do es no tj ust i fy the use of deadl y f orce t o d o so. ”) . R ob i nson cont ends that W a l t e r s pos e d no i m m e di a t e thr e a tt o A rrugue t a be c a us e the E s c or tw a s m ovi ng s l ow l y a nd A rrugue t a ha d e nough t i m e t o ge toutof the E s c or t ’ s w a y . T he S u p r e m e C o u r t, h o w e v e rh a s e m p h a s iz e d th a t th e in q u iry in to w h e th e rth e la w is cl ea rl y e st abl i shed “ m ustbe un dert aken i n l i gh tof the spec i fi c c on t extof the ca se , no tas a broad general prop osi t i on . ” B r os s e au , 125 S . C t . a t599, quot i ng Sa uci er , 53 3 U . S . at20 1. W e c on cl ud e that , atthe t i m e of the shoo t i ng , no cl ea rl y def i ned p r e e x is tin g la w w o u ld h a v e in d ic a te d to A rru g u e ta th a t h is u s e o f f o r c e u n d e rth is s p e c if ic f a c tu a l s itu a tio n w a s u n la w f u l. C . M a te r ia l I s s u e s o f D is p u te d Fa c ts D o N

o t Fo r e c lo s e th e G r a n t o rD e n ia l o f Su m m a r

y J u d g m e n t B a s e d

o n Q u a lifie d

I m m u n ityWe n otethat qu alif ie d immunity

is “ immunity

from s uit ra ther t ha n a merede fens eto 5 liability .” Mi tc he ll v. F

or sy th , 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.C t. 2806, 2815 (1985). “[The] important purposes of qualified immunity arethwarte d if a c ase is er roneously permitted to g o to trial.” Harrell v. De catur County, GA , 2 2 F. 3 d 1 5 7 0 , 1 5 7 8 (1 1 thC i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( Dub i n a, J . di s s ent i n g) vacated by 41 F.3d 1494 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (adoptingJudg e Dubina’ s dissenting opinion). The purpose of

qualified immunity

is to ensure that off

icials arenot deterred or distracted f rom car rying out their

official duties beca

use of f ear of a later law suit. Id. 10 R obi ns on c ont e nds tha tge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c te xi s tc onc e rni ng the e v e n ts th a t le d A rru g u e ta to f ir e h is g u n a n d , th e r e f

o r e , A rru g u e ta , is n o t e n title d to sum m ary j ud gm enton the grou nd of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty. T he S up re m e C ou rthas i ns truc t e d, how e ve r , tha t“ [ t ] o de ny s um m a ry j udgm e nta ny t i m e a m a t e r i a l i s s ue of fa ctre m ai ns on the exces si ve force cl ai m –cou l d u nd erm i ne the go al of qu al i fi ed i m m uni ty t o ‘ a voi d e xc e s s i ve di s rupt i on of gove rnm e nta nd pe r m i tthe r e s ol ut i on of m any i nsub st ant i al cl ai m s on sum m ary j ud gm ent . ’ ” Sa uci er , 533 U . S . a t202 ( quot i ng H

a r lo w v . F itz

g e r a ld , 45 7 U . S . 80 0, 81 8, 10 2 S . C t . 27 27 (198 2)). 5 W he n c onduc t i ng a qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty a na l y s i s , di s tr i c tc our t s m us tt a ke the f a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o r a b le to th e p a r ty a s s e r tin g th e in ju ry . Sa uci er , 533 U .S . a t 2 0 . W h e n a d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r s th e r e c o r d in th is lig h t, it e lim in a te s a ll issu es o f f

ac t. B y a p p ro ac h in g th e r ec o rd in th is w ay , th e c o u rt h as th e p lain ti ff’s be s tc a s e be f

or e i t . W i th the pl a i nt i f

f’ s be s tc a s e i n ha nd, the c our ti s a bl e t o m ove t o the que s t i on of

w he the rthe de f

e nda ntc om m i tt e d the c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on al l eg ed i n th e co m p l ai n tw i th o u th av i n g t o assess an y fact s i n d i sp u t e. T h u s,11

be c a us e m a t e r i a l i s s ue s of di s put e d f

a c ta r e nota f

a c t ori n the c our t ’ s a na l y s i s of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty a nd c a nnotf or e c l os e the gr a ntorde ni a l of s um m a ry j udgm e nt b a s e d o n q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity ; w e d e c lin e to e n te r ta in R o b in s o n ’s a r g u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e a lle g e d ly d is p u te d f a c ts . III. F o rth e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AF F I RM the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to A rru g u e ta b a s e d o n q u a lif ie d im m u n ity .