[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 06 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 09 12 -J A-DAB CHARLIE JOHN WILL IAMS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us ERIC A. BAUER, JEFF REY P. BROUSE, RUBEN J. CHAVEZ, CHARLES E. SMITH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 14 , 20 13 ) Befo re MAR TIN, JORDAN, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 1 of 8Ch arl ie W il li am s, a fe de ral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, s ue d fe de ral ag en ts

Eric A. Baue r, Je ffre y

P. Bro us e, Rube n J . Cha ve z, an d C ha rle s R . Sm it h (Defe nd an ts ) cla im in g t ha t the y us edex ces si ve for ce wh il e arr es ti ng hi m . The 1 2 di st ric t co urt g ran te d Def en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, co nc lu di ng th at th ey were i m m un e fro m civ il da m ag es be cau se th ey were ac ti ng withi n t he sco pe of th ei r di sc ret io na ry

au th or ity du rin g t he arre stan d the ir o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e co nduc t d idno t v io la te th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. Onap pe al , W il li am s ar gu es th at th e d is tri ctco urt erredinit s ru li ng . I. W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f a s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n d e n ov o, ap pl y in g t he sa m e le ga l s ta nd ardas t he di stric t co urt. Durru th y v. Pa st or , 35 1 F .3d10 80 , 10 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . A m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t “ if [ he ] sh ows th atth ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d [h e] is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a). Th e m ov in g p arty ha s t he

Def endants a re a g ents of the United States B urea u of Alcohol, Toba cco, F irea rms, and 1 Ex plosives (ATF ). Will iams also sued Specia l Ag ent Richie Z ayas, in favor of whom summary judgme nt was ea

rlier grante d. He is not a pa rty to this appeal bec ause Williams contests only the grant of summar

y judgme nt for B auer , Br ouse, Chavez, and Smith. Although Williams asserted his excessive for ce c laim under the Eighth Amendment, the 2 district court prope rly

construed his c omplaint to fall under the F ourth Amendment be cause “[t] he F ourth Amendment’s f ree dom from unre asonable sear ches a nd seizures enc ompasses the plain right to be fre e fr om the use of e x cessive f orce in the course of an a

rre st.” L ee v. F err aro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 2

Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 2 of 8in it ia l b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth ere are n o g enui ne is su es of m at eri al fact .

Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 23 , 10 6 S . Ct. 2 54 8, 2 55 2- 53 (19 86 ).

“ The bu rd enth ensh ift s t o t he no n- m ov in g p arty to reb utth atsh owi ng by pr oduc in g a ffi da vi ts or o th er re le va ntan d a dm is si bl e ev id en ce b ey on d t he pl ead in gs .” Jo ne s v . UPS Grou ndFrei gh t, 6 83 F.3d12 83 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . W e co ns id er the fact s an d re as on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Man n v . TaserInt ’l, Inc., 5 88 F.3d12 91 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e al so li be ral ly int erp retpl ead in gs fro m a pr o s e li ti ga nt . See Do ug la s v . Yate s, 5 35 F.3d13 16 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). II. Gov ern m en t o ffi ci al s ar e imm un e fro m li ab il it y forciv il da m ag es when in th e co ur se of p erfo rm in g adi sc ret io nary fun ct io n “ th ei r co nduc t d oe s n otvi ol at e cl earl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh ts of wh ic h areas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own .” Harl ow v . Fit zg eral d, 4 57 U.S. 80 0, 8 18 , 10 2 S . Ct. 2 72 7, 27 38 (19 82 ). To b e el ig ib le forqu al ifi edimm un it y , an o ffi ci al m

us t s ho w th athe was pe rfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n a t the ti m e o f th e al le ge d c on st itut io na l

3 Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 3 of 8vi ol at io n. Lee v . Ferra ro , 28 4 F .3dat 1 19 4. “ To d et erm in e whe th er an off ic ia l was en ga ge d i n adi sc ret io nary fun ct io n, we co ns id er wh ethe r th e act s t he off ic ia l un de rto okare o f a ty

pe th atfel l wi th inth e em pl oyee’s job res po ns ib il it ie s.” Cro sb y v. Mo nr oe Co un ty, 39 4 F .3d13 28 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . The rec or d s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt fi nd in g t ha t the ag en ts were pe rfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n a t the ti m e o f th e arr es t. Acco rd in g t o de cl arat io ns fro m

th e arr es ti ng ag en ts , W il li am s was arre st edas p artof a n 3 un de rco ve r op erat io n i nv es ti ga ti ng th e cri m in al act iv it ie s o f th e g ro up kn own as Co rp or at e Thu gz Ent ert ai nm en t Cr ew. Sp eci fic al ly, Defen da nt s wer e p artof t he Sp eci al Res po ns e Team

th atarre st edW il li am s s ho rtl y be fo re h e p la nn edto co m m ita vi ol en t ro bb ery. W il li am s s ta te d i n h is ownaffi davi t tha t h e was arre st edpurs ua ntto a “ rev ers e st in g o pe rat io n.” Thi s arres t was pa rt o f Defen da nt s’ res po ns ib il it y as l aw en fo rcem en t ag en ts . There fo re, Defe nd an ts were p erfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n. Id . Onc e anoff

ic ia l h as sh own th athe was p erfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n, th e p la in ti ff b ears th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t the off ic ia l co m m it te d a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a ndth atth e v io la te d c on st itut io na l ri gh t was “ cl earl y Special Ag ents Richie Z ayas, Charle s E. Smit h, Ruben J . Chavez, J eff rey P. Brouse , 3 Eric A. B auer , and Christopher F elski provided dec larations as exhi bits to Defenda nts’ Motion for Summary

J udg ment. 4 Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 4 of 8es tabl is he d” at t he ti m e o f th e arr es t. Id . W il li am s ar gu es th atDefen da nt s

vi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t b y us in g e xc es si ve for ce wh il e arr es ti ng hi m . He al so co nt en ds th atm at eri al fact s ar e in di sp ut e as to whet he r Defen da nt s’ us e o f fo rce was ex ces si ve . To p rev ai l o n a n e xc es si ve for ce cl ai m un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, W il li am s m

us t s ho w th ata se iz ur e o ccu rredan d t he for ce u se d dur in g t ha t s ei zu re was un reas on ab le . See Tro up e v . Saras ot a Co un ty, Fl a., 41 9 F .3d11 60 , 11 66 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . The Supr em e Co urt h as in stru ct edth atinde ci di ng whethe r th e fo rce u se d was reas on ab le , we con si de r a num be r of fact or s, “ in cl ud in g t he se ve rit y of t he cri m e atis su e, whe th er the su sp ectpo se s an imm ed ia te th reatto th e sa fety of t he off

ic ers or o th ers , andwhet he r he is act iv el y res is ti ng arre stor at te m pt in g t o e va de arre stby flig ht .” Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 3 86 , 39 6, 1 09 S. Ct . 18 65 , 18 72 (19 89 ). W e h av e ex pl ai ne d tha t “ th e fo rce u se d b y a po li ce of fic er i n c arrying ou t an arre stm us t b e rea so nabl y

pro po rti on at e to th e n eedfor th atfor ce, wh ic h i s m eas ur edby the sev eri ty of th e cri m e, th e d an ge r to th e of fic er, an d t he ris k o f fl ig ht .” Lee v . Ferra ro , 28 4 F .3dat 1 19 8. Whenweig hi ng th e rel ev an t fa ct or s, we ar e m in df ul th at“ th e rea so nabl en es s i nqui ry inan ex ces si ve for ce ca se is anob jecti ve on e: th e que st io n i s wh ethe r th e o ffi cer’s act io ns are o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e in li gh t o f th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces 5 Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 5 of 8co nf

ro nt in g h im .” Cro sb y

v. Mo nr oe Co un ty, 39 4 F .3dat 1 33 3 (quo ta ti onm ark s om it te d) . Eve n v ie win g t he fact s al le ge d b y W il li am s i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to hi m , Defen da nt s’ us e o f fo rce was no t ex ces si ve an d d idno t v io la te th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. Defe nd an ts arre st edW il li am s o n t he da y th ey be li ev edhe in te nd ed to co m m ita se rio us cri m e. They als o h adreas on to be li ev e th atW il li am s wo ul d ha rm th em an d o th ers . W il li am s h adin fo rm edZay as , who was wo rk in g un de rco ve r, th athe was g oi ng to rob a st as h h ou se an d “ th e p lan was to ki ll ev eryone pre se ntinth e st as h h ou se .” W il li am s s ai d tha t p ol ic e in th e are a wou ld no t b e ab le to “ ha nd le ” h im . Sh ortl y be fo re the arre st , Zay as saw tha t the m anin th e p as se ng er s eatof Wil li am s’s ca r, Mer cu ti o S to ke s, h ada ri fle . Zay as in fo rm ed th e arr es ti ng ag en ts th atSto ke s h ada gu n i n t he car. Sto ke s ad m it te d t ha t h e h ada rif le “be twee n t he sea t.” 4 The re i s al so vi de o e vi de nc e sh owi ng th atW il li am s at te m pt edto ev ad e arre st . To eff

ectth e arr es t, Defe nd an ts id en ti fie d t he m se lv es as l aw en fo rcem en t 5 A question of fa ct exist s about whethe r Stokes lifted the rifle duringthe ar rest, and 4 there fore we c onstrue that fa ct in the light most favorable to Willi ams. Neve rtheless, our decision to aff

irm the grantingof summary judgme nt is based on the undisputed fa cts that Wil liams was eva ding a

rre st with a firea

rm in his vehicle and a

t the time he intended to commit a violent robbery . ATF ag ents had c amer as at the sc ene which monitored the a rre st. 5 6 Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 6 of 8an d app ro ach edth e fro ntof Wil li am s’s v eh ic le . Ins te adof g et ti ng ou t o f th e caras

or de red , W il li am s ac cel erat edinrev ers e. W il li am s b rie fly sto pp edth e car , bu t as Defen da nt s co nt in ue d t o app ro ach with i ns tru ct io ns to ge t o utof t he ve hi cl e, W il li am s ag ai n a ccel erat edinrev ers e. W il li am s cl ai m s t ha t h e at te m pt edto su rren de r an d t ha t the vi de o re co rd in g do es no t captur e h is effo rt t o d o s o. Will ia m s, St ok es , andJo hn so n s ta te d i n t he ir affi da vi ts th atW il li am s at te m pt edto su rren de r by pla ci ng hi s h an ds ab ov e th e st eeri ng whee l. Will ia m s ex pl ai ns th atas h e was att em pt in g t o s urren de r, he “ le t hi s fo otup off

th e b rak e an d t he ve hi cl e m ov edba ckward s fo r a b it , andst op pe d . . . [th en ] m ov edba cka se co ndti m e.”

“ Tho ug h the fact s m

us t b e ta ke n i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to [W il li am s], th e d et erm in at io n o f rea so nabl en es s [i n a n e xc es si ve for ce cl ai m ] m us t b e m ad e fro m th e p ers pe ct iv e o f th e o ffi cer.” Rob in so n v . Arrug ue ta , 41 5 F .3d12 52 , 12 55 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Also , “ [t]he ‘ reas on ab le ne ss ’ of a pa rti cu la r us e o f fo rce m us t b e jud ge d fr om

th e p ers pe ct iv e o f a rea so nabl e o ffi cer o n t he sce ne , rathe r th anwith th e 2 0/ 20 vi si on of h in ds ig ht .” Grah am v. Co nn or , 10 9 S . Ct. at18 72 . Here, Defen da nt s s ta te d t ha t the y fir edin th e d ire ct io n o f W il li am s t o p ro te ctth em se lv es an d t he ir t eam

m em be rs . Becaus e Will ia m s h adsai d t ha t h e wou ldki ll ev eryone atth e st as h h ou se an d S to ke s h ada gu n, the y be li ev edth atSto ke s wo ul d o pe n fi re. 7 Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 7 of 8Eve n a ss um in g t ha t Will ia m s ra is edhi s h an ds to su rren de r, he co nc ed es th at

Defen da nt s wo ul d n otha ve see n t hi s g es tu re b ecau se of h is il le ga ll y ti nt ed win do ws. In st ead , W il li am s’s two ac cel erat io ns inrev ers e su gg es te d tha t h e was ev ad in g a rres t. Altho ug h Def

en da nt s fi redten sh ot s atth e v eh ic le , 6 th e v id eo ev id en ce de m on st rat es th atth ey

di d n otus e an y

for ce u nt il W il li am s ac cel erat edinrev ers e fo r th e se co ndti m e. Becaus e “ itis co ns ti tu ti on al ly reaso nabl e fo r anoff ic er t o u se de ad ly force when a su sp ectis th reat en in g e sc ap e an d p os si bl e h arm to ot he rs ,” we co nc lu de th atth is us e o f fo rce was ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e fro m th e p ers pe ct iv e o f Defen da nt s. Ro bi ns on v. Arru gu et a, 41 5 F .3dat 1 25 6. Defen da nt s d idno t 7 vi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t an d a re en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED .

Wil liams was not direc tly hit by a bullet. Instead, the bullets pier ced the windshield 6 and Wil liams sustained injuries from the broke n g lass. Be cause there was no c onstitut ional violation, our qualified immunity inquiry ends her e. 7 See id. 8

Case: 12-10068 Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Page: 8 of 8