FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 4, 2008 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 08- 1076 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-01150 -CV -2-MH T- TF M DANIEL BRYAN KEL LEY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us RICK Y O W EN S, indiv iduallyand in his o fficial c ap a c i t y a s S h e r i f

f o f C o o s aC o u n t y, AL BRA DL EY , individu ally and in his o fficial c ap a c i t y a s De p u t y S h e r i f f o f C o o s aC o u n ty, TE RRYW IL SO N, indiv iduallyand in his o fficial c ap a c i t y a s De p u t y S h e r i f f o f C o o s aC o u n ty, W EN DYRO BE RSO N, indiv iduallyand in her official c ap a c i t y a s De p u t y S h e r i f f o f C o o s aC o u n ty, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 4, 200 8)2

Be fo re D U BIN A , CA RN E S an d B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing de fe ndants / appellants’ m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent based on qu alified im m unity
. Plaintiff/ Appellee D aniel Bry an Ke lley (“ Ke lley ”) f

iled a com

plaint in the United State s D istri ct Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of A la ba m a ag ai nst

de fe ndants /a

ppe llants Ri cky O w en s, T er

ry W ils on, A l B ra dle y , and W en dy Ro be rs on, a lle gin g vari ous vio la tio ns o f his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts b as ed on the tr eatm en t he r ec ei ve d duri ng h is inc ar ce ratio n inthe Co osa Co unty , A la

ba m a, Ja il be tw ee n N ove m be r 13, 200 3,
an d January

16, 200 4. I n am em or an dum opi nio n and o rd er

f ile d onF eb ru ar

y 1, 2008 , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d inpart and d en ie d inpart

the part ie s’ m oti on f

or
summ ary j udgm ent. Specifica lly , the district court perm itted Kelley to proceed
w ithhis c ondi tio ns o f co nf ine m en t c la im s a ga ins t S he ri ff O w en s and S er ge an t Ro be rs on, e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a ga ins t Ja ile r Br ad le y , and f ai lur e to i nte rv en e cl ai m ag ai ns t Ad m in is tra to r W il so n.

“ Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d onqua lif ie d im m uni ty is r ev ie w ed de novo , c onstru ing a ll fa ct s and m ak ing a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s in the light m ost favorable to the non m ovin g party .” Tinker v. Be asley , 429 F
. 3d 1324 , 132 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. “ G en er al ly , w he n th er e ar e [d isp ute d] iss ue s of f ac tThe district cour t’s denial of summar

y judgme nt based on the c laim of qualified 1 immunit y beca use g enuine issues of material fa ct exist ed is an immediately appea lable orde r beca use “[t] he district cour

t’s deter mination that ge nuine issues of mater ial fac t prec lude summary judgme nt is it self a c onclusion of law.” Mc Da nie l v . W

oo da rd, 886 F.2d 311, 313 (11th Cir. 1989). 3 . . . qua lif ie d im m uni ty m ust be de nie d be ca

use the c ourt, a t this sta ge of the proceedings, m

ust view the fac ts m ost favorable to the plainti ff. ” Travers v. Jones , 32 3 F .3d12 94 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Inthe pr es en t c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the e vid en ce pr es en te d a ju ry qu es t i o n as t o wh et h erd ef en d an t s Owe n s an dRo b er s o n v i o l at edKe l l ey’s constitu tional right s when they punis hed him

by confining h im

under
unc onst itu tio na l c ondi tio ns. M or eo ve r, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the record e vidence, if found to be true, would supp ort a conclusion th at Bra dley vi ol at edKell ey ’s con st it ut io na l ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m th e m al ic io us us e o f fo rce. Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that W ils on v iol at ed

K el le y ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts whe n h e fai le d t o i nt erv en e an d s to p B rad le y fro m in juri ng hi m . A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, and r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs , w e ag re e w iththe district court’ s conclusio n that issu es of fa ct precluded a f indin g of summ ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y forth e d efen da nt s. Acco rd in gl y , we 1 af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing sum m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants ba se d o n q ua li fie d i m

m un it y . AFFIR MED.