FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 07- 13143 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 1 0 3 2 - CV - A SG M A R K W H I T T I N G T O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T O W N O F S U R F S I D E , F L , a m u n ic ip a lity , P A T R I C K J O H N G I A M B A L V O , in d iv id u a lly , L U I S P E R E Z , in d iv id u a lly , 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 17, 2008)2

B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ark W hi tt i ng t on appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng sum m ary j udgm e nti n f

a vorof de f e nda ntT ow n of

S ur f s i de ( “ S ur f

s i de ” ) on W hi tt i ngt on’ s 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c la im th a t h e w a s f a ls e ly a rr e s te d b y S u r f

s id e p o lic e o f

f ic e r s in v i o l a t i o n o f

th e Fo u r th A me n d me n t . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . W h i tti n g to n ’s A rrest W e r e v ie w th e f

a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to W h ittin g to n . O n F e b ru a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , W h ittin g to n w a s w a itin g a t a b u s s to p in S u r f s id e . H e le a n e d u p a g a in s t a c o n c r e te p o s t w h ic h h a d a b u s s to p s ig n a tta c h e d to it. W h e n th e w in d b le w , th e s ig n b e c a m e lo o s e to s o m e e x te n t a n d h it W h ittin g to n in the f a c e . T he f

or c e f r om the s i gn br oke W hi tt i ngt on’ s s ungl a s s e s . W hi tt i ngt on then t ore the si gn fr om the po stand threw i tt o the grou nd . W hi tt i ng t on al l eges tha the di d thi s s o no one e l s e c oul d be i nj ur e d by the s i gn. S e v e r a l te e n a g e r s a t th e b u s s to p la u g h e d a f te rs e e in g th e s ig n h it W h ittin g to n . W h ittin g to n h a d w o r d s w ith th e m , a n d th e y le f t th e b u s s to p . W hi tt i ng t on ob se rved on e of the m em bers of thi s group , w ho w as l at eri dent i fi ed a s C hr i s M a r c o, s t op a nd s pe a k w i th S ur f s i de pol i c e of

f i c e rL ui s P e r e z . A c c or di ngIn contra st to Whittington’s ver sion of the events, Officer Pere z st ated in his repor t that 1 Whittington had already

boarde d the bus by

the time he re ache d the bus stop. 3 to O f f ic e rP e r e z ’s p o lic e r e p o r ts , M a r c o to ld h im th a t h e h a d o b s e r v e d a w h ite m a le w e a r i ng a n or a nge M i a m i H urr i c a ne s s w e a t s hi r tt e a rthe bus s t op s i gn f r om the p o l e. O ffi cer P erez th en cam e an d st o o d d i rect l y b eh i n d W h i tt i n g t o n , w h o se appe a r a nc e m a t c he d M a r c o’ s de s c r i pt i on, f orthe ne xts e ve r a l m i nut e s unt i l the bus a rr i ve d. O f

f i c e rP e r e z di d nots a y a ny thi ng t o W hi tt i ngt on ors t op hi m f r om 1 b o a r d in g th e b u s . W h ittin g to n b o a r d e d th e b u s a n d s a t n e a rth e b a c k o f th e b u s . A ppr oxi m a t e l y f

ourorf i ve bl oc ks l a t e r , tw o S ur f s i de pol i c e c a r s pul l e d up be s i de the bu s a nd pu l l ed i tov er . W hi tt i ng t on ov erhear d a conv er sa t i on betw ee n tw o m en s ittin g n e a rh im w h o h e a s s u m e d w e r e c o n s tru c tio n w o r k e r s b a s e d o n th e ir c lo th in g . W h ittin g to n c la im e d th a t o n e to ld th e o th e r , “I c a n ’t ta k e it. Y o u ta k e it. I’ m o n p aro l e. ” W h i tt i n g t o n d eci d ed t o w al k t o w ard th e fro n to f th e b u s. W hi tt i ng t on tho ug htthatthe po l i ce w er e s t op pi ng the bu s bec ause of hi s e ar l i er i nc i de ntw i th the bus s t op s i gn, a nd he a l s o w a nt e d t o s e pa r a t e hi m s e l f f r om the tw o m e n. A ft erthe bu s s t op ped and W hi tt i ng t on st art ed t o exi tthe bu s, he w as confront ed by si x p ol i ce offi ce rs . O ne of the offi ce rs had h i s gun ou tand ano ther w as ho l di ng a c l ub . O ne offi ce r s ai d, “ getoff the bu s, you G od dam n scum bag. ”On appe al, Whitt ington a rgues brief

ly that the seizure of ma

rijuana w as the fr

uit of an 2 unlawf ul a rre st a nd c ould n ot b eus e d ag ains t him. B e c a us eWhittington

did no t raisethi s c laim 4 A tthi s poi nt , W hi tt i ngt on ha d noti ndi c a t e d tha the w oul d r e f us e t o e xi tthe bus or tr ie d to r e s is t th e o f

f ic e r s in a n y w a y . T w o of f i c e r s , a l l e ge dl y O f

f i c e r s P a tr i c k G i a m ba l vo a nd P e r e z , r e a c he d up, g r ab b e d h im b y th e s h ir t in h is c h e s t a r e a , a n d p u lle d h im d o w n f r o m th e b u s . H is m om entum ca rr i ed hi m fr om the bu s i nt o som e hedges i n a ya rd, and the offi ce rs f e l l on t op of

hi m . W hi tt i ngt on f

e l thi s kne e pop a s thi s happe n. W hi tt i ngt on i nd i ca t ed that , atthi s poi nt , al l of the offi ce rs pres entpi l ed on t o h i m . T he offi ce rs keptsa yi ng t o h i m , “ [g] o ahead, re si st , com e on, gi ve us a r ea son. ” T he offi ce rs h a n d c u f f e d h im a n d s a t h im o n th e s id e w a lk . O f f ic e rJ o h n F io r ito c la im e d th a t h e o b s e r v e d W h ittin g to n th r o w a w h ite b o ttle a s h e w a lk e d to w a r d th e f r o n t o f th e b u s a n d r e la y e d th is in f o r m a tio n to O f f ic e rG ia m b a lv o . O f

f ic e rG ia m b a lv o s e a r c h e d th e b u s a n d f o u n d a w h ite b o ttle th a t c o n ta in e d a s m a ll a m o u n t o f m a r iju a n a . W h ittin g to n d e n ie s th a t th is b o ttle w as hi s a nd as sum es thati tbel on ged t o o ne of the tw o m en w ho w er e s i tt i ng near h im o n th e b u s . W hi tt i ng t on w as arre st ed for posse ss i on of m ar i j uana and cri m i nal m i sc hi ef and i ss ued a no t i ce t o app ea r i n cou rt . T he charges agai nstW hi tt i ng t on w er e u ltim a te ly d is m is s e d . A lth o u g h th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th a t th e A s s is ta n t S ta te 2in the district court, wedecline to address it. Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385

F.3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (statingrule that this Court generally will not consider an issue on appeal that was not raise d first in the district court). The district cour

t dismi ssed with prejudiceWhittington’s statelaw claims of neg ligence 3 and malicious prose cution ag ainst Surfside and his fe deral due proc ess claims ag ainst Surfside, Of fi c e r P e re z, and

Of fi c e r G iambalvo . B e c a

us eWhittington

do e s n ot challeng ethe sedis mis sals on appeal, these claims are now de emed a bandoned. A cce ss Now, Inc., 385 F .3d at 1330. Specifically , the district court grante d summary judgment in favor of

the def endants on 4 Whittington’s c laims ag ainst (1) Surfside f or state law

false a rre st and falseimprisonment and under § 1983 f

or false arrest and substantive dueproce ss and equal protection violations; and (2) Offic ers Gia

mbalvo and Pere z under § 1983 for f alse a rre st, ex cessive f

orce , and substantive due proce ss and equal protection violations. 5 A tt orney dropp ed the charges agai nstW hi tt i ng t on because the arre st i ng offi ce r f a i l e d t o appe a ri n c our t , W hi tt i ngt on c ont e nds tha tO f f i c e rP e r e z w a s pr e s e nton h is c o u r t d a te . B . W h it t in g t o n ’ s L a w s u it W h ittin g to n f

ile d a c o m p la in t in F lo r id a s ta te c o u r t a lle g in g m u ltip le s ta te l aw and federa l const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s, i ncl ud i ng fa l se arre st , agai nstS urfs i de, as a m u n ic ip a lity , a n d O f

f ic e r s P e r e z a n d G ia m b a lv o , in d iv id u a lly . T h e d e f e n d a n ts r e m o v e d th e c a s e to f

e d e r a l c o u r t a n d m o v e d to d is m is s W h ittin g to n ’s c o m p la in t. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed the defendant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss i n p artand al l ow ed W hi tt i ng t on t o rea l l ege s om e of hi s c l ai m s i n an am ended com pl ai nt . A ft er 3 W hi tt i ng t on fi l ed a s ec on d am ended com pl ai nt , the defendant s m ov ed for s um m ary ju d g m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f o rth e d e f

e n d a n ts o n a ll c l a i m s . S ubs e que nt l y , W hi tt i ngt on s e tt l e d hi s c l a i m s a ga i ns tO f f i c e r s P e r e z a nd 4Be causeWhittington only appeals his § 1983 false ar rest claim ag ainst Surfside, he ha s 5 a ba ndon e d all o ther c laims on a pp e al. A c c e ss N ow , Inc ., 38 5 F .3 d at 13 30 . F ur ther, his “Summary

of the Argument” and “ Statement of I ssues” pag es only ref erence § 1983, a

nd not F lorida statelaw, and

thu s w ec on str

uehisbrie f a s o nly

a pp e alinghis§ 1 98 3 c laim ag ains t Surfside for

false a rre st. See APA Excelsior IIIL .P. v. Premiere Te chnolog ies, Inc., 476 F .3d 1261, 1269-70 (11th Cir. 2007) (c oncluding , based in pa rt on examination of statement of issues in initi al brief

, that issue was not cle arly raised in initial brief a

nd was thus aba

ndoned). We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s order grantingsummary judgment. Holloman v. 6 Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2006). 6 G i am b al v o i n d i v i d u al l y. T h i s ap p eal i n v o l v es o n l y h i s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m fo r fal se arre stagai nstthe T ow n o f S urfs i de. 5 I I . DI S CUS S I ON 6 I n or de rt o pr e va i l i n a § 1983 a c t i on, the pl a i nt i f f m us ts how a de pr i va t i on of a f e de r a l r i ghtby a pe r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . G r i f

f i n v. C i ty of O pa-L ocka, 26 1 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). M un i ci pal i t i es and o ther l ocal g o v ern m en ten t i t i es are i n cl u d ed am o n g th o se p erso n s t o w h o m § 1 9 8 3 ap p l i es, M one l l v. D e pa r tm e ntof S oc i a l S e r vi c e s . , 436 U . S . 658, 690- 91, 98 S . C t . 2018, 2036 ( 1978) , butm a y notbe he l d l i abl e on a r e s ponde a ts upe r i orthe ory , B oa r d of C ounty C om m i s s i one r s v. B r ow n, 520 U . S . 397, 403, 117 S . C t . 1382, 1388 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . I n s t e a d , t o i m p o s e § 1 9 8 3 l i ab i l i ty o n a m u n i c i p a l i ty , a p l a i n t i f f m u s ts h o w: ( 1) tha thi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d; ( 2) tha tthe m uni c i pa l i ty ha d a p o lic y o rc u s to m th a t c o n s titu te d d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to th a t c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t;7

a nd ( 3) tha tthe pol i c y orc us t om c a us e d the vi ol a t i on. M c D ow e l l v. B r ow n, 392 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 89 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). “ A po l i cy i s adeci si on thati s off i ci al l y a do pt ed by the m uni c i pa l i ty , orc r e a t e d by a n of f i c i a l of s uc h r a nk tha the ors he c oul d be s a i d t o be a c t i ng on be ha l f of the m uni c i pa l i ty . ” S e w e l l v. T ow n of L a ke H am i l t o n , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 4 8 8 , 4 8 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). A cu st o m i s a p ract i ce th ati s so s e tt l e d a nd pe r m a ne nttha ti tt a ke s on the f or c e of l a w . M one l l , 436 U . S . a t691, 98 S .C t. a t 2 0 3 6 . I t is u n n e c e s s a ry to a d d r e s s h e r e w h e th e rW h ittin g to n ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts w e r e vi ol a t e d by S ur f

s i de be c a us e he ha s f

a i l e d t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctthatthere w as a c ust om or po l i cy i n S urfs i de thatcaused the al l eged co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n . W h i tt i n g t o n st at ed th e b asi s fo r § 1 9 8 3 l i ab i l i ty ag ai n st S u rfsi d e i n h i s seco n d am en d ed co m p l ai n tas fo l l o w s: P E R E Z fabri ca t ed thi s c harge because of acust o m and p ol i cy that exi s t e d i n SU RF SI D E w he r e i n c i t i z e ns s uc h a s pl a i nt i f f w e r e ha r as se d by pol i c e of

f i c e r s w i tho u tc a us e ba s e d on the i rnonc onf or m i s ta nd “ hi ppi e - l i ke ” appe a r a nc e , a l l f orthe purpos e of

de pr i vi ng pl a i nt i f

f of hi s s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s r i ght s t o be f r e e f r om u n l aw f

ul in f r in g e m e n t f

r o m u n r e a s o n ab le s e iz u r e b y p o lic e a u th o r itie s . T h is S urfs i de p o li cy of i nfri ng i ng on the ri gh t s of c i t i ze ns such as pl ai nt i ff t ook on the f

or m of pol i c e m e n “ s t a r i ng dow n” c i t i z e ns a s a f or m of i n t i m i d a t i on, f

abr i c a t i ng w i tne s s e s a nd e vi de nc e , a nd know i ngl y a nd p u rp o s e f u lly f a ilin g to p r e s e r v e e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld e x c u lp a te a c c u s e d c itiz e n s s u c h a s p la in tif f . I n s u p p o r t o f

h is a lle g a tio n s o f

a c u s to m o rp o lic y o f

p o lic e h a r a s s m e n t in8

S ur f s i de , W hi tt i ngt on pr of

f e r s onl y the de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony of c urr e ntS ur f

s i de M a y orC ha r l e s B ur ke tt . I n the de pos i t i on e xc e rpt s s ubm i tt e d by W hi tt i ngt on, W h ittin g to n ’s c o u n s e l q u e s tio n e d M a y o rB u r k e tt r e g a r d in g a n e w s p ap e ra r tic le re po rt i ng on a S ept em ber 200 6 com m i ss i on m ee t i ng i n w hi ch M ay or B urkettw as quot e d a s s a y i ng tha tpe opl e i n the pa s tha d t ol d hi m tha tthe y w e r e a f r a i d of S ur f s i de pol i c e of

f i c e r s a nd tha tof

f i c e r s w e r e “ i nt i m i da t i ng pe opl e w i th the i rl ook a nd the i rs t a r e s . ” M a y orB ur ke ttt e s t i f i e d tha tthe quot e c oul d be a c c ur a t e , buthe c o u ld n o t r e m e m b e rf

o rs u r e if h e h a d s a id it. M a y orB ur ke ttf

ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha tpe opl e c om pl a i ne d t o hi m aboutthe S u r f s id e p o lic e , p a rtic u la r ly a n O f f ic e rD a v is , w h e n h e w a s ru n n in g f o ro f f ic e in 2 0 0 4 . M a y o rBu r k e ttt e s t i f i e d th a th e “ wa s h e a r i n g th a t , y o u k n o w, th e S. W . A. T. te a m s w e r e c o m in g to h o u s e s a n d h a r a s s in g p e o p le a n d s c a r in g th e m ” a n d th a t h is re ac t i on w as thatthese t ac t i cs w er e “ very heavy- hand ed. ” M ay or B urkettfurther t es t i fi ed thathe w as t ol d thatthere w ou l d b e pol i ce offi ce rs i n ful l gearst at i on ed at every c orner of the room atpu bl i c m ee t i ng s i n S urfs i de and thathi s e xp er i ence s a t m e e tin g s w a s th a t it “w a s n o t a h ap p y s itu a tio n .” T he s e a ne c dot e s r e l a y e d t o M a y orB ur ke tta r ound the t i m e he w a s runni ng for off i ce i n 2 00 4 d o n otcr ea t e agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctthatthere w as an offi ci al po l i cy or cust om of hara ss m entthatcaused W hi tt i ng t on ’ s a l l eged9

const i tut i on al i nj ury. M ay or B urkett ’ s t es t i m on y does notre fe re nce a ny ci t i ze n c om pl a i nt s aboutS ur f

s i de pol i c e of

f i c e r s ha r a s s i ng i ndi vi dua l s w i th a

“ no ncon form i st ” or “ hi pp i e- l i ke” app ea ra nce, fabri ca t i ng w i tness es and evi dence, or fa i l i ng t o p re se rve e vi dence thatw ou l d sup po rtW hi tt i ng t on ’ s c l ai m thatthere w as an o ff

icial cu sto m o r p o li cy o f s u ch . T o th e e x ten t th at M ay o r B u rk ett’ s depo si t i on re fe re nces a s t at em enthe m ade r egar di ng com pl ai nt s thatpo l i ce offi ce rs w e r e i nt i m i da t i ng pe opl e w i th the i rs t a r e s , the r e f e r e nc e d ne w s a r t i c l e f

r om S e pt e m be r2006, w hi c h w a s a y e a ra nd a ha l f a f t e rthe F e brua ry 2004 i nc i de nt he r e , doe s nots uppor tW hi tt i ngt on’ s c l a i m tha tthe r e w a s s uc h a pol i c y orc us t om of i nt i m i da t i ng pe opl e w i th s t a r e s i n F e brua ry 2004. F ur the r , the r e c or d c ont a i ns a n a f f i da vi tf r om M a y orB ur ke tti n w hi c h he s t a t e s tha the ( 1) he l d no publ i c of f i c e i n S ur f

s i de i n F e brua ry 2004 w he n the al l eged i nci dentoccurre d; (2) had no pers on al kn ow l edge of any S urfs i de po l i ce in te rn a l c u s to m s o rp o lic ie s th a t e x is te d o n o rb e f o r e F e b ru a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 ; a n d ( 3 ) is nota w a r e of

a ny i ns t a nc e s ora l l e ge d i ns t a nc e s of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e orf a l s e a rr e s tby the S urfs i de po l i ce departm ent . T hu s, M ay or B urkett ’ s ow n aff i davi tre veal s that he had n o actual kn ow l edge of S urfs i de po l i ce po l i ci es or cust om s i n F ebruary 20 04 . E ven i f he di d, hi s kno w l edge w ou l d n otnece ss ar i l y dem on stra t e that S u r f s id e o f f ic ia ls w e r e o n n o tic e o f

s u c h o f f ic ia l p o lic ie s o rc u s to m s s o a s to10

w a rr a n t h o ld in g S u r f

s id e liab le h e r e b e c a u s e M a y o rB u r k e tt w a s n o t a p u b lic e m pl oy e e i n S ur f

s i de i n F e brua ry 2004. T he r e f or e , be c a us e W hi tt i ngt on ha s f a i l e d t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctthathi s a l l eged const i tut i on al vi ol at i on w as caused by a m un i ci pal c u s to m o rp o lic y , w e a f f ir m 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 in fa vo r of S urfs i de. AF F I RME D.