### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 11427 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -001 03 -C V -J T C -3 G R E G O R Y P A R K S , S R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F C A R R O L L T O N , B A R R Y C A R R O L L , C h ie f o f P o lic e , JO H N N Y L Y N N , C orpo ra l of C arrol l t on C i ty P ol i ce D e p a r tm e n t, 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 14, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: G reg o ry P ark s, S r. ap p eal s p ro se th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s g ran to f th e d efen d an t s’ m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nton hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c l a i m a l l e gi ng tha tthe p o lic e u s e d e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e w h ile a rr e s tin g h im in v io la tio n o f h is F o u r th A m endm entri gh t s. H e a rgues thatsum m ary j ud gm entw as i m prop erand t hat r e m a nd i s ne c e s s a ry be c a us e i ns uf f i c i e ntdi s c ove ry w a s c onduc t e d i n thi s c a s e . F or th e r e a s o n s s t a t e d mo r e f u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. P a r ks , a G e or gi a s t a t e pr i s one ra tthe t i m e he f i l e d hi s pr e s e ntappe a l , f i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns tthe C i ty of C a rr ol l t on; B a rry C a rr ol l , c hi e f of pol i c e ; a nd J ohnny L ynn, a C arrol l t on C i ty pol i ce offi ce r, al l egi ng that , on Jul y 4, 20 02 , he w as pl ac ed i n the back of a poli ce ca r f ol l ow i ng an ar gu m entw i th h i s w i fe and t hatO ff i ce r L y nn y a nke d hi m outof the c a r , thr e w hi m t o the gr ound, a nd ha ndc uf f e d hi m t oo t i gh t l y. L ynn p l ac ed P arks back i nt o the ca r, bu tbecause the hand cuff s w er e c utt i ng i nt o hi s ha nds , P a r ks tr i e d t o ge ta n of f i c e r ’ s a tt e nt i on by ki c ki ng a tthe w i ndow w i th hi s f

oot . L y nn the n a s ke d P a r ks w hy he w a s ki c ki ng on the doora nd, a c c or di ng t o P a r ks , L y nn puthi s ha nd i n P a r ks ’ s f a c e . L y nn’ s f

i nge rthe n w e nt i n t o P ark s’ s m o u th , atw h i ch p o i n tP ark s b i tL yn n ’ s fi n g er, p ro m p t i n g L yn n t o say,

“ h e b i tth e sh i to u to f m e, ” b efo re h i tt i n g P ark s i n th e face fo u r t o fi v e t i m es, causi ng hi m t o b l ee d. P arks di d n otal l ege thathi s nose w as brok en or i nd i ca t e that3

m e di c a l tr e a tm e ntw a s r e qui r e d. P a r ks w a s l a t e rf ound gui l ty , a f

t e ra tr i a l , of h in d e r in g a la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r . T h e c o m p la in t d id n o t in d ic a te w h a t, if a ny thi ng, the C i ty orC hi e f C a rr ol l ha d done t o P a r ks . H ow e ve r , P a r ks r e que s t e d, a s da m a ge s , a n i nt e rna l a f f a i r s i nve s t i ga t i on, c om pe ns a t or y , nom i na l , a nd puni t i ve d a m a g e s , a n d d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n s a g a in s t th e o f f ic e r s o n th e s c e n e o f

h is a rr e s t. A f t e rP a r ks ’ s c l a i m ha d be e n s c r e e ne d f orf r i vol i ty a nd a l l ow e d t o pr oc e e d, he s ubm i tt e d hi s i ni t i a l di s c l os ur e s on a f or m tha tr e que s t e d a ny i nf or m a t i on a bout w i tness es w ho w ou l d p re se ntevi dence und erR ul es 70 2, 70 3, or 70 5 (expert t es t i m on y) , as w el l as a w ri tt en re po rtfr om any s uch w i tness as re qu i re d u nd er F ed. R . C i v. P . 26 (a )( 2)(B ), or any e vi dence of an i nsurance a gree m entun der w hi ch a per son m i gh tbe l i abl e pursuantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 34 . P arks cl ai m ed thathe had, as evi dence, a tri al tra nscr i ptof L ynn’ s t es t i m on y a nd a pho t o o f hi m se l f, bu tnei ther w a s s u b m itte d . T he de f e nda nt s f i l e d a n a ns w e ron D e c e m be r30, 2003, a nd a s s e r t e d a num be rof

de f e ns e s , i nc l udi ng qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty . O n J une 18, 2004, the defe nd ant s f

i l ed a m ot i on for l ea ve t o fi l e f or sum m ary j ud gm enton e day l at e, a c c om pa ni e d by a br i e f

a nd e xhi bi t s . I n the i rm ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , the d efen d an t s arg u ed fi rstth atP ark s h ad fai l ed t o p ro v e th atth e u se o f fo rce t o arrest hi m w as obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. S ec on d, they a rgued t hatoffi ce r L ynn w as4

e n title d to q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity b e c a u s e h e w a s a c tin g in h is d is c r e tio n a ry a u th o r ity a nd r e a s ona bl y r e s ponde d t o P a r ks ’ s s truggl i ng i n the ba c k of the pol i c e c a ra nd bi t i ng L ynn’ s f

i ng er . L as t l y, they a rgued t hatthe C i ty of C arrol l t on and C hi ef B arry C arrol l shou l d b e gra nt ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause a ny al l eged co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n d i d n o tresu l tfro m an o ffi ci al p o l i cy. A s e v id e n c e , th e d e f

e n d a n ts s u b m itte d th e s w o rn a f f id a v it o f J o h n n y L y n n . L ynn st at ed thathe i s acorporal w i th the C arrol l t on P ol i ce D epar tm entand w as one of the of f i c e r s r e s pondi ng t o a c a l l r e ga r di ng dom e s t i c vi ol e nc e on J ul y 4, 2002. C hi e f

B a rry C a rr ol l w a s notpr e s e nton the s c e ne a nd, w he n L y nn a rr i ve d, P ark s w as b ei n g q u est i o n ed b y a fel l o w o ffi cer. P ark s g av e h i s n am e as R ay P ark s, w i th a bi r th da t e of

A ugus t8, 1987, w hi c h the pol i c e de t e r m i ne d w a s f a l s e , c a us i ng P ark s t o b e arrested an d p l aced i n th e b ack o f a p atro l car fo r g i v i n g fal se i n fo rm at i o n . D u ri n g th e co n t i n u ed i n v est i g at i o n , a seatb el tw as strap p ed acro ss P a r ks , buti tw a s notl oc ke d dow n, e na bl i ng P a r ks t o m ove a r ound i ns i de the ve hi c l e . P a r ks be ga n ki c ki ng the i nt e r i orof the c a rde s pi t e be i ng i ns truc t e d t o s t op, a nd L y nn s t a t e d a rr e s t e e s ha d pr e vi ous l y ki c ke d outw i ndow s of a pa tr ol c a ra nd j u m p e d o u t . L y n n a n d a n o th e ro f f i c e ra tt e m p t e d t o s u b d u e P a r k s a n d l o c k d o wn the s e a tbe l t , a nd P a r ks c ont i nue d t o s truggl e , s pi tt i ng i n L y nn’ s f a c e a nd c a us i ng L y nn t o puthi s ha nd on P a r ks ’ s f a c e t o turn hi s he a d a w a y . W hi l e hi s ha nd w a s on5

P arks’ s f ac e, P arks turned and bi tdo w n o n L ynn’ s f i ng erhard enou gh t o d ra w b lo o d a n d , a s s o o n a s h is h a n d w a s f r e e , L y n n s tru c k P a r k s tw ic e to s u b d u e h im a nd the n t i ght e ne d dow n the s e a tbe l tt o pr e ve ntf urthe rm ove m e nt . T he l a s tpa ge s h o w e d th a t th e m o tio n a n d a c c o m p a n y in g d o c u m e n ts h a d b e e n m a ile d to P a r k s . I n c lu d e d w ith th e m o tio n w a s a n o tic e to r e s p o n d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, m ai l ed by the cl erk o f c ou rtand add re ss ed t o P arks athi s pl ac e of det ent i on , R i vers S t at e P ri son. O n Jun e 28, 20 04 , ho w ever , P arks advi se d the courtthathe had recei v ed th e “ n o t i ce t o resp o n d , ” b u th ad n o tyetb een serv ed w i th th e d efen d an t s’ m ot i on . H e f

i l ed a s i m i l aradvi se m enti nd i ca t i ng that , as of Jul y 12, 20 04 , he had s t i l l n o tr e c e i v e d th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n a n d , th e r e f o r e , c o u l d n o tr e s p o n d t o i t . On O c t obe r20, 2004, P a r ks f i l e d a m ot i on f

ora n e xt e ns i on of

t i m e t o pur s ue d is c o v e ry , s ta tin g h e h a d ju s t le a rn e d o f th e d is c o v e ry p r o c e d u r e s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts o p p o se d P ar k s’s m o ti o n , arg u in g th at th ey h ad filed th eir a n sw erto P ar k s’s c om pl a i nton D e c e m be r30, 2003, a nd tha tthe de a dl i ne f ordi s c ove ry w a s M a y 28, 2 0 0 4 . B e c a u s e p r o c e d u r a l ru le s ap p ly e q u a lly to p r o s e litig a n ts , th e d e f e n d a n ts ar gu ed thatP arks shou l d n otbe al l ow ed t o reopen d i sc ov ery nea rl y aye araf t er the i ra ns w e rha d be e n f i l e d a nd s i x m onths a f

t e rdi s c ove ry ha d be e n c l os e d. P a r ks the n f i l e d a m ot i on t o c om pe l di s c ove ry on D e c e m be r22, 2004. O n D e c e m b e r2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to6

f i l e f ors um m a ry j udgm e ntone da y l a t e , de ni e d P a r ks ’ s m ot i on t o e xt e nd d is c o v e ry , a n d d ir e c te d th e d e f e n d a n ts to s e r v e P a r k s w ith a n o th e rc o p y o f th e ir sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on and t o fi l e are turn rece i ptw i th the courtas soon as th ey re ce iv ed it . O n Ja n u ar y 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , P ar k s f il ed an “o b

jectio n to D ef

en d an t’ s m ot i on for S um m ary J ud gm ent . ” I n i t , he ar gu ed thatL ynn d i d u se exce ss i ve force w h en arrest i n g h i m an d th atL yn n w as n o ten t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty b ecau se h e u s e d e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e w h ile P a r k s w a s h a n d c u f f e d w ith h is h a n d s b e h in d h is ba c k a nd s tr appe d dow n i n L y nn’ s pa tr ol c a r . H e f ur the ra r gue d tha tthe C i ty of C arro l l t o n an d C h i ef B arry C arro l l w ere n o ten t i t l ed t o su m m ary j u d g m en tb ecau se L ynn v i ol at ed a pol i cy w hi l e und erthe supervi si on of bo th the C i ty a nd C hi ef C a rr o ll. T he on l y e vi dence s ub m i tt ed by P arks w er e e xcerpt s of aj ury tri al c onduc t e d i n the S upe r i orC our tf orthe C ounty of

C a rr ol l i n G e or gi a . T he t e s t i m ony s ubm i tt e d appe a r s t o be f r om O f f i c e rL y nn, w ho t e s t i f

i e d tha t , on the ni ghtof P a r ks ’ s a rr e s t , P a r ks r e pe a t e dl y a s ke d of f i c e r s t o t a ke hi m t o j a i l , but L y n n , th e s u p e r v is in g o f f ic e ro n th e s c e n e , r e f

u s e d to d o s o b e c a u s e h e w a n te d to m ake s ure thata proper i nv es t i gat i on w as com pl et ed. L ynn further t es t i fi ed that P a r ks ha d bi tt e n hi s f

i nge ra nd, a s he w a s pul l i ng hi s f i nge routof

P a r ks ’ s m outh, L y nn s truc k P a r ks thr e e orf ourt i m e s . A s a r e s ul tof L y nn’ s a c t i ons , P a r ks7

r e c e i ve d a bl oody nos e . P a r ks a l s o s ubm i tt e d the t e s t i m ony of s om e one w ho appe a r s t o ha ve be e n a n of f i c e ron the s c e ne a tthe t i m e of P a r ks ’ s a rr e s t . T he t e s t i m ony i ndi c a t e d tha tL y nn w e ntt o a pa tr ol c a rt o t e l l P a r ks nott o ki c k the w in d o w o rd o o ra n d th a t P a r k s b e c a m e b e llig e r e n t, s c r e a m in g “ju s t ta k e m e to j a i l , ” a nd tha t , a ts om e poi nt , L y nn s c r e a m e d s om e thi ng, ba c ke d outof the c a r , a nd h a d b lo o d o n h is a r m s . N o o th e re v id e n c e w a s s u b m itte d . T he di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a n or de rgr a nt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

or sum m ary j ud gm entand d enyi ng the m ot i on thatP arks had fi l ed t o com pel d is c o v e ry . A s to th e d is c o v e ry , th e c o u r t f o u n d th a t P a r k s h a d a m p le o p p o r tu n ity to s e e k d is c o v e ry f

r o m th e d e f

e n d a n ts a n d h a d f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ha d f a i l e d t o r e s pond, ors how c a us e f orhi s s e ve n- m onth de l a y i n s e e ki ng di sc ov ery. N ext , the courtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entt o d ef endantC hi ef

B arry C a rr ol l be c a us e he w a s notpr e s e nta tP a r ks ’ s a rr e s ton J ul y 4, 2002. A s t o L ynn, the courtfoun d thatP arks w as re qu i re d t o sho w thatL ynn w as n o t e n title d to q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity a n d th a t h e h a d f a ile d to m e e t h is b u r d e n . S peci fi ca l l y, the courtfoun d thatP arks had p re se nt ed no evi dence s ug gest i ng that L ynn’ s a ct i on s a ft erP arks bi tL ynn’ s f i ng erw er e obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e und er the t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s . I tf

ur the rf ound tha tP a r ks ha d pr e s e nt e d no e v id e n c e c o n tr a d ic tin g L y n n ’s a f f id a v it, f a ile d to p r o v id e th e v id e o tap e o f h is8

a rr e s t o rp h o to g r ap h s o f h is b lo o d y f

a c e a f te rh is a rr e s t, a n d c o u ld n o t r e ly s o le ly on hi s pl ea di ng s t o d ef

ea tL ynn’ s s w orn st at em ent . Ital so foun d thatthe tri al e xc e rpt s di d nots ugge s ttha tL y nn’ s us e of f or c e w a s unr e a s ona bl e . F i na l l y , the courtfoun d thatthe C i ty w as ent i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm entbecause P arks had fa i l ed t o p rovi de any e vi dence thatthe forc e use d d uri ng hi s a rr es tw as partof a pers i st entand w i despre ad pract i ce , or thatL ynn, C arrol l , or any other c i ty off i ci al h ad fi n al p o l i cy-m ak i n g au th o ri ty reg ard i n g th e u se o f fo rce i n effecti n g arrest s. O n ap p eal , P ark s arg u es th ath i s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m al l eg i n g ex cessi v e fo rce m u st be j udge d by r e f

e r e nc e t o the s pe c i f

i c c ons t i tut i ona l s t a nda r ds gove rni ng hi s r i ght t o be f r e e f r om unr e a s ona bl e s e i z ur e s . H e the n pr oc e e ds t o a r gue tha tthe de f e nda nt s di d notpur s ue di s c ove ry a nd, the r e f or e , a s be s ta s c a n be di s c e rne d, c oul d notha ve m e tthe i rbur de n of s how i ng tha tthe r e w e r e no ge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c tt o be de c i de d a ttr i a l . P a r ks a r gue s tha tqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty doe s not appl y bec ause the C i ty hi re d L ynn and C arrol l and b oth o ff i ce rs vi ol at ed fe dera l l aw . P arks re qu es t s are m and t o p ursue hi s § 19 83 cl ai m s, i ncl ud i ng di sc ov ery. It i s not e d, how e ve r , tha tP a r ks l i s t s thr e e e num e r a t i ons of e rr or s i n hi s s t a t e m e ntof i s s ue s : ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by a c c e pt i ng a m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e ntout of t i m e; (2) the di stri ctcourterre d b y a cc ept i ng a s um m ary j ud gm entm ot i on that w a s nots e r ve d t o hi m , pr e ve nt i ng hi m f r om a de qua t e l y r e s pondi ng; a nd ( 3) the9

d i stri ctco u rterred b y n o trev i ew i n g th e tri al tran scri p t s h e p resen t ed . T h ese a r g u m e n ts a r e n o t d e v e lo p e d in P a r k s ’s b r ie f . A s a pr e l i m i na ry m a tt e r , P a r ks l i s t s , a m ong hi s i s s ue s f orappe a l , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by a c c e pt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e ntout of t i m e . A l though he doe s note l a bor a t e f ur the ra r gum e nton tha ti s s ue i n br i e f , he di d a tt e m ptt o m a ke thi s a r gum e nti n the di s tr i c tc our ti n hi s s um m a ry j udgm e nt re spon se . H ow ever , P arks has gi ven n o rea son o n app ea l w hy the di stri ctcourt e rr e d by a c c e pt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on one da y l a t e . P a r ks ha s s how n no pr e j udi c e t o hi m s e l f

a nd, t o the e xt e nthe r e l i e s upon the l a c k of i nt e ns i ve d i s c o v e ry , th a ta r g u m e n ti s a d d r e s s e d b e l o w.

“ T hi s c our tr e vi e w s de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ' s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt ba s e d on the de f

e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . ” H ol m e s v. K uc y nda , 321 F . 3d 1069, 1077 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . S um m a ry j udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e i f the pl ea di ng s, depo si t i on s, answ er s t o i nt errogat ori es , and adm i ss i on s on fi l e, t og ether w i th the af

fi davi t s, i f a ny, show there i s no g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al fa ct a n d th a tth e mo v i n g p a r ty i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma tt e ro f l a w . Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 56; C e l ot e x v. C a tr e tt , 477 U . S . 317, 323- 24, 106 S . C t . 2548, 2553, 91 L . E d. 2d 2 6 5 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h is C o u r t v ie w s th e e v id e n c e a n d a ll f a c tu a l in f

e r e n c e s th e r e f

r o m 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 o p p o s in g th e m o tio n , a n d a ll r e a s o n a b le10

doubt s a boutthe f

a c t s a r e r e s ol ve d i n f

a vorof the non- m ova nt . B ur t on v. C i ty of B e l l e G l a de , 178 F . 3d 1175, 1187 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . T he r e i s a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a te r ia l f

a c t o n ly if

th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty h a s p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e s u c h th a t a r e a s ona bl e f

a c t - f i nde rc oul d r e turn a ve r di c ti n i t s f a vor . W a dde l l v. V a l l e y F or ge D e n ta l A s s o c s ., I n c ., 2 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . F i r s t , t o the e xt e ntP a r ks i s a r gui ng tha tthe de f e nda nt s di d notpur s ue a ny di s c ove ry a nd, the r e f

or e , c oul d notha ve m e tthe i rbur de n of s how i ng the l a c k of g e n u in e is s u e s o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t, th e c o n te n tio n is w ith o u t m e r it. T h e d e f e n d a n ts ca m e f orw ar d w i th the sw orn aff i davi tof O ff

i ce r L ynn and ar gu ed thathe w as e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty be c a us e the f or c e us e d dur i ng P a rks ’ s a rr e s tw a s not obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. L ynn’ s s w orn aff i davi tw as evi dence and, l ef t unc ont e s t e d, w a s s uf

f i c i e ntf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de rthe de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on b ecau se th e affi d av i tseto u tth e ev en t s o f Ju l y 4 , 2 0 0 2 , l ead i n g t o P ark s’ s arrest a n d th e a c tio n s L y n n to o k , in c lu d in g th e u s e o f f o r c e , w h ile m a k in g th e a rr e s t. S e c o n d , to th e e x te n t th a t P a r k s ’s in itia l b r ie f is c o n s tru e d a s a r g u in g th a t a re m and i s r equi re d t o p erm i tP arks t o con du ctdi sc ov ery, and further c on strued as b ei n g an ap p eal o f th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o co m p el d i sco v ery, thi s c ont e nt i on i s a l s o w i thoutm e r i t . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s c ove ry rul i ngs f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e B ur ge rK i ng C orp. v. W e a ve r , 169 F . 3d 1310, 1315Whil e not technic ally a par t of the district court’ s rec ord, wetake judicial noticeof the 1 local rule s for the N orthern D istrict of Georg ia and the a ppendix. S ee F ed.R.Evid. 201(b)- (c) , (f) . 11 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). W e have hel d thatpro se l i t i gant s, w hi l e e nt i t l ed t o l i bera l construct i on of thei r pl ea di ng s, ar e r equi re d t o con form t o p roce du ra l rul es . S ee L oren v. S as se r, 30 9 F . 3d 12 96 , 13 04 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ); se e a l so M cN ei l v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 508 U . S . 106, 113, 113 S . C t . 1980, 1984, 124 L . E d. 2d 21 ( 1993) ; M oon v. N e w s o m e , 8 6 3 F .2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( “o n c e a p r o s e I F P litig a n t is in court , he i s s ubj ec tt o the re l evantl aw and rul es of court , i ncl ud i ng the F eder al R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e .” ) . P u r s u a n t to L o c a l R u le 2 6 .2 a n d A p p e n d ix F , th e d is c o v e ry p e r io d in th is c a s e be ga n 30 da y s a f

t e rthe de f

e nda nt s f i l e d the i ra ns w e ra nd w a s t o l a s tf our m on ths. T he defendant s’ answ erw as fi l ed on D ec em ber 30, 20 03 , m ea ni ng that

1 di s c ove ry w a s s c he dul e d t o l a s tf r om J a nua ry 29, 2004, unt i l M a y 29, 2004. P a r ks di d notf i l e f ora n e xt e ns i on of

t i m e f ordi s c ove ry unt i l O c t obe r26, 2004, f i ve m on ths af

t erdi sc ov ery had concl ud ed, and d i d n otfi l e hi s m ot i on t o com pel di sc ov ery unt i l D ec em ber 22, 20 04 . N otw i thst andi ng thatdel ay , P arks w as gi ven a n i ni t i a l di s c l os ur e f

or m s hor t l y a f

t e rhe f i l e d hi s c om pl a i nt , a nd the f or m m a de di r e c tr e f e r e nc e t o both the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e a nd the F e de r a l R ul e s of C i vi l P roce du re . P arks i nform ed the courtof w i tness es w ho he bel i eved had12

di sc ov er abl e i nform at i on , as w el l as tw o p i ec es of evi dence, a pho t o and a tri al tr a n s c r ip t, th a t h e b e lie v e d to b e r e le v a n t to h is c la im . P a r k s ap p a r e n tly w a s a b le to obt a i n the tr i a l tr a ns c r i pt , a s e xc e rpt s w e r e i nc l ude d i n hi s oppos i t i on t o the de f e nda nt s ’ s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on. H ow e ve r , P a r ks ne ve ri nc l ude d the phot o, no r has he dem on stra t ed any a tt em pt s t o see k d i sc ov ery f rom the defendant s. In s hor t , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng P a r k s ’s m o tio n to c o m p e l. T urni ng t o the c our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of the s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y gra nt ed sum m ary j ud gm entt o C hi ef C arrol l i n h i s i nd i vi du al c apa c i ty be c a us e C a rr ol l w a s notpr e s e nta tP a r ks ’ s a rr e s ta nd, the r e f or e , c oul d not ha ve ha d a ny i nvol ve m e nti n a ny a l l e ge d us e of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e . S e c ond, t o the e xt e nttha tC a rr ol l a nd L y nn w e r e s ue d i n the i rof f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s , i tw a s the f unc t i ona l e qui va l e ntof

s ui ng the C i ty i t s e l f

, w hi c h P a r ks di d. S e e A l e xa nde rv. F u lto n C o u n ty , G a ., 2 0 7 F .3 d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 2 2 n .1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T o p r e v a il a g a in s t th e C ity , P a r k s w a s r e q u ir e d to p r o v e th a t th e a lle g e d ly u n c o n s titu tio n a l a c tio n im p le m e n te d a n o f f ic ia l p o lic y o f

th e C ity o rw a s th e r e s u lt of a gove rnm e nt a l c us t om . S e e M one l l v. D e p’ tof S oc i a l S e r vi c e s , 436 U . S . 658, 6 9 0 - 9 1 , 9 8 S .C t. 2 0 1 8 , 2 0 3 5 - 3 6 , 5 6 L .E d .2 d 6 1 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F u r th e r m o r e , th e C ity ca nn otbe hel d l i abl e und era theory of r es po nd ea tsuperi or. Id. at69 1, 98 S . C t . atThereis no dispute that officer Ly nn was actingin his discretionary function when he 2 arrested Parks. SeeHudg ins v. City of Ashburn, G a., 890 F .2d 396, 404 (11th Cir. 1989)

13 2 0 3 6 . M o r e o v e r , to th e e x te n t th a t P a r k s a r g u e s th a t th e C ity f a ile d to p r e v e n t its offi ce rs fr om usi ng exce ss i ve force i n arr es t s, he m ustshow thatthe C i ty a ct ed w ith d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e to k n o w n o ro b v io u s c o n s e q u e n c e s . D a v is v . D e K a lb C ou nty S choo l D i stri ct , 23 3 F . 3d 13 67 , 13 75 -76 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). H er e, P arks nei ther a l l eged i n h i s c om pl ai ntno r proff er ed any e vi dence sugg es t i ng thatthe use of e xces si ve forc e i n arr es t s i s w i despre ad or pers i st ent , l et a l one tha ti ti s a pol i c y orc us t om of the C i ty of

C a rr ol l t on ori m pl e m e nt e d by C hi ef C arrol l or O ff

i ce r L ynn. N or has he a l l eged, l etal on e s up pl i ed any r ec ord evi dence, i nd i ca t i ng thatthe C i ty w as del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entt o the consequences o f its o f f ic e r s u s in g e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e d u r in g a rr e s ts . A c c o r d in g ly , L y n n a n d C a rr o ll w er e e nt i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm entt o the ext entthey w er e s ued i n thei r off i ci al c apa c i t i e s , a s w a s the C i ty of C a rr ol l t on. T urni ng t o P a r ks ’ s c l a i m a ga i ns tL y nn i n hi s i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty , “ [ t ] he d e f e n s e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity c o m p le te ly p r o te c ts g o v e rn m e n t o f f ic ia ls p erfo rm i n g d i scret i o n ary fu n ct i o n s fro m su i ti n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es u n l ess thei r c on du ctvi ol at es cl ea rl y e st abl i shed st atut ory or c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s of w hi ch a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve know n. ” C ott one v. J e nne , 326 F . 3d 1352, 1357 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). In det erm i ni ng w hether qual i fi ed i m m un i ty app l i es , the court 2(holdingthat a g overnment official acts in his discretionary authority where “obje ctive circumstances . . . c ompel the conc lusion that his actions were undertaken pursuant to the perf ormanc e of his duties and w ithin the scope of his authority .”). 14 fi rs tas ks w hether the pl ai nt i ff’ s a l l egat i on s, i f true, es t abl i sh a vi ol at i on of a const i tut i on al ri gh t , and sec on d, w hether thatri gh tw as cl ea rl y e st abl i shed. Id. at 1 3 5 8 . T h u s, i f n o co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n i s est ab l i sh ed , th en th e o ffi cer p rev ai l s, and “ there i s no n ec es si ty f or further i nq ui ri es concerni ng qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty. ” S auci erv. K at z, 53 3 U . S . 19 4, 20 1, 12 1 S . C t . 21 51 , 21 56 , 15 0 L . E d. 27 2 (20 01 ). T he F our th A m e ndm e nte nc om pa s s e s the r i ghtt o be f r e e f r om the us e of e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e d u r in g a n a rr e s t. V in y a r d v . W ils o n , 3 1 1 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2002) . W e e va l ua t e the r e a s ona bl e ne s s of the f or c e us e d unde ra n obj e c t i ve s ta n d a r d a n d a s k w h e th e ra n o f f ic e r ’s a c tio n s w e r e r e a s o n a b le “in lig h t o f th e f a c ts a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s c onf r ont i ng hi m , w i thoutr e ga r d t o hi s unde r l y i ng i nt e ntor m ot i vat i on . ” E st at e of K es i ng erv. H erri ng t on , 38 1 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 48 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). “ T he ca l cul us of re as on abl enes s m ustem bo dy al l ow ance for the fa ctthat po l i ce offi ce rs ar e oft en force d t o m ake s pl i t -s ec on d j ud gm ent s- -i n ci rc um st ance 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 e v o lv in g - - a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f f o r c e th a t is ne c e s s a ry i n a pa r t i c ul a rs i tua t i on. ” G r a ha m v. C onnor , 490 U . S . 386, 396- 97, 109 S . C t . 18 65 , 18 72 , 10 4 L . E d. 2d 44 3 (19 89 ). W e ha ve a l s o l ooke d t o “ the ne e d f orf or c e , the a m ountof

f or c e us e d, a ndSee Anderson v. Liberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 3 L .Ed.2d 202 (1986) (holding that a n adver se par

ty may not rest upon the mere alleg ations or denials of his pleading to de feat summary judgment). 15 the i nj ury i nfl i ct ed. ” J on es v. C i ty of D othan, A l a. , 12 1 F . 3d 14 56 , 14 60 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ). F i nal l y, “ qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty app l i es un l es s app l i ca t i on of the st andard w oul d i ne vi t a bl y l e a d e ve ry r e a s ona bl e of f i c e ri n [ the pos i t i on of

the de f e nda nt of f i c e r ] t o c onc l ude the f

or c e w a s unl a w f

ul . ” N ol i n v. I s be l l , 207 F . 3d 1253, 1255 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). In hi s a ff i davi t , L ynn st at ed thatP arks w as arre st ed, hand cuff ed, and p l ac ed i n the ba c k of

a pa tr ol c a ra nd, a l though the s e a tbe l tw a s s tr appe d a c r os s P a r ks , he w as no tl ocked d ow n and w as abl e t o m ov e i nsi de the vehi cl e. P arks began k i c k i n g th e i n s i d e o f

th e c a ra n d a rr e s t e e s h a d , i n th e p a s t , k i c k e d o u tth e wi n d o ws i n a pa tr ol c a ra nd j um pe d out . L y nn r e s ponde d by ge tt i ng i nt o the ba c k s e a ta nd try i ng t o s ubdue P a r ks a nd l oc k the s e a tbe l tdow n, a nd P a r ks r e s ponde d by c ont i nui ng t o s truggl e w i th L y nn, y e l l i ng a nd s pi tt i ng i n hi s f a c e . W he n L y nn put h is h a n d o n P a r k s ’s f

a c e , P a r k s b it L y n n ’s f

in g e r , d r a w in g b lo o d , c a u s in g L y n n to s tr i k e Pa r k s “ tw o t i me s ” t o s u b d u e h i m. A si de fr om hi s pl ea di ng s, w hi ch ar e i nsuffi ci entt o d ef ea tsum m ary j u d g m en t , P ark s su b m i tt ed ex cerp t s o f L yn n ’ s tri al t est i m o n y. N o th i n g i n th o se

3 tra nscr i pt s c re at es an i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctre fut i ng L ynn’ s a ff i davi t . Iti s not ed16

tha tL y nn’ s t e s t i m ony , a c c or di ng t o the tr a ns c r i pt s , w a s tha the hi tP a r ks “ thr e e or four t i m es ” a nd P arks re ce i ved a bl oo dy no se . H ow ever , the un di sput ed evi dence–and P arks’ s pl ea di ng i s notevi dence for purposes of s um m ary ju d g m e n t– is th a t P a r k s w a s s tru g g lin g in th e b a c k o f th e c a ra n d u s in g h is f

e e t to k ic k a t th e in te r io r . O f

f ic e rL y n n , a w a r e th a t a rr e s te e s h a d a tte m p te d to e s c ap e in si m i l arw ay s, tri ed t o l ock P arks’ s s ea tbel tw hi l e P arks ye l l ed and res i st ed. W hen L y nn puthi s ha nd on P a r ks ’ s f a c e , appa r e nt l y t o pr e ve ntP a r ks f r om s pi tt i ng on hi m , P a r ks bi tL y nn’ s f

i nge r , dr a w i ng bl ood a nd, unde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , L y nn struck P arks i n an eff

ortt o sub du e hi m , causi ng P arks t o b l ee d from hi s nose. O n th es e f

ac ts an d in th es e c ircu m stan ce s, itca n n o t b e s aid th at L yn n ’s a c t i ons w e r e obj e c t i ve l y unr e a s ona bl e i n r e s pons e t o P a r ks ’ s s truggl e a nd in f lic tio n o f a m in o rw o u n d to O f

f ic e rL y n n . I t w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b le to w a n t to s e c ur e P a r ks i n or de rt o pr e ve nta pos s i bl e e s c ape , a nd the a m ountof f or c e w a s not e x c e s s iv e g iv e n P a r k s r e s is ta n c e . A t th e v e ry le a s t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t it is i m pl a us i bl e tha te ve ry r e a s onabl e of f i c e rpl a c e d i n L y nn’ s pos i t i on w oul d f i nd the forc e he use d w as un l aw ful , es peci al l y gi ven thatP arks has noteven al l eged, l et al on e pre se nt ed evi dence, thathi s nose w as brok en or thatm edi ca l tre atm entw as ne e de d. S e e N ol i n, 207 F . 3d a t1255; P os tv. C i ty of F or tL a ude r da l e , 7 F . 3d 1552, 15 59 -60 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ) ( ho l di ng that , w hi l e there w as no m ore need for f orce17

af t erthe defendanthad b ee n p l ac ed i n a chok e- ho l d and hand cuff ed, the fa ctthat he w a s pus he d i nt o a w a l l di d notm a ke the f or c e unl a w f

ul a nd, the r e f

or e , the of f i c e ri nvol ve d w a s e nt i t l e d t o i m m uni ty ) ; G ol d v. C i ty of M i a m i , 121 F . 3d 1442, 14 46 -47 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe m i no r nature of the defendant ’ s i nj uri es f r o m f o r c e f u l h a n d c u f

f in g w o u ld n o t “in e v itab ly le a d ” a r e a s o n a b le o f f ic e rto c onc l ude tha tthe f

or c e us e d w a s unl a w f

ul ) ; J one s , 121 F . 3d a t1460- 61 ( hol di ng tha t , w hi l e s l a m m i ng the de f e nda nta ga i ns tthe w a l l , ki c ki ng hi s l e gs apa r t , a nd gr a bbi ng hi s w a l l e tf

r om hi s pa nt s m i ghtha ve c ons t i tut e d unne c e s s a ry f or c e , the i nj ur i e s w e r e m i nora nd r e a s ona bl e of f i c e r s w oul d noti ne vi t a bl y c onc l ude tha tthe f o r c e u s e d w a s u n la w f

u l) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe undi s put e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s do nots how L y n n ’s a c tio n s to h a v e b e e n o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b le u n d e rth e F o u r th A m endm entand, furtherm ore, they w er e notso un re as on abl e thatan offi ce r f ac ed w ith L y n n ’s s itu a tio n w o u ld h a v e in e v itab ly b e lie v e d th e f o r c e u s e d w a s u n la w f

u l. B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e c on cl ud e thatsum m ary j ud gm entw as prop er l y gra nt ed t o Ly n n , Ch i e f

Ca rr o l l , a n d th e Ci ty o f Ca rr o l l t o n . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.