FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT Marc h 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- 11687 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 6 1 5 3 6 - C V- KA M F R A N Z A . W A K E F I E L D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F P E M B R O K E P I N E S , B row ar d C ou nty, F l ori da (P em brok e P i nes P ol i ce D e p a r tm e n t) , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , D A N I E L G I U S T I N O , P o lic e C h ie f

, e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ 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)Wakefield ha s apparently been inc onsistent in reportingwhen this incident occurre d, 1 alleg ing at various times that the traf fic stop was in November or D ecember 2002. His sec ond amende d complaint, however, alleg es that the tra ffic stop oc curred on De cember 24, 2002, the day on which he w as out shopping f or a D VD that had be en re lease d for sale on that date.

2 B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r a nz A . W a ke f

i e l d appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng the C i ty of P e m br oke P i ne s ’ m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta nd de ny i ng hi s c r os s - m ot i on f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to h is p r o s e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c la im s o f e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e . I. W akef i el d’ s § 19 83 ac t i on i s bas ed on tw o separ at e i nst ance s, du ri ng w hi ch h e a lle g e s th a t C ity p o lic e o f f ic e r s u n ju s tif iab ly p o in te d th e irg u n s a t h im . A cc ordi ng t o W akef

i el d, the offi ce rs ’ ac t i on s c on st i tut e e xces si ve force and w er e the r e s ul tof

the C i ty ’ s pol i c y a nd c us t om of a rr e s t i ng a nd a bus i ng A f r i c a nA m er i ca ns. T he fi rs ti nst ance al l egedl y occ urre d o n D ec em ber 24, 20 02 , atw hi ch 1 t i m e W a ke f

i e l d c l a i m s tha tO f

f i c e rR i c ha r d B a rbe rpul l e d hi m ove rf orrunni ng a r e d l i ghta nd, w i thoutj us t i f i c a t i on, he l d hi m a tgunpoi nt . T he s e c ond i nc i de nt o c c u rr e d in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 4 , a f te rW a k e f

ie ld c a lle d th e p o lic e to r e q u e s t a s s is ta n c e in r e c o v e r in g s o m e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r ty f r o m a s e lf

- s to r a g e b u s in e s s . A c c o r d in g to W a ke f i e l d’ s c om pl a i nt , O f

f i c e r s B a rbe ra nd D e s i l va a rr i ve d a nd, w i thout j us t i f i c a t i on, poi nt e d the i rguns a thi m f ors om e t i m e be f

or e e ve ntua l l y e s c or t i ng3

h im to th e s to r a g e f

a c ility . I n D e c e m be r2004, W a ke f i e l d s ubm i tt e d a c om pl a i ntr e ga r di ng the 2002 tr a f f ic s to p to S e r g e a n t J a c o b . W a k e f ie ld c o u ld n o t n a m e th e o f f ic e rin v o lv e d in the 2002 i nc i de nta ttha tt i m e , nordi d he m e nt i on the J a nua ry 2004 i nc i de nt . J a c ob c ons ul t e d the C i ty ’ s da t a ba s e tha tl ogs tr a f f i c s t ops a nd f

ound tha ti tdi d not i ndi c a t e a ny que ry f

orW a ke f

i e l d oc c ur r i ng dur i ng the r e l e va ntt i m e pe r i od. J a c ob a l s o s how e d W a ke f

i e l d a book c ont a i ni ng phot ogr aphs of C i ty pol i c e of

f i c e r s , a nd W a ke f i e l d i de nt i f

i e d one of

f i c e rw ho w a s note m pl oy e d by the C i ty a tthe t i m e of the a l l e ge d i nc i de nta nd a nothe rof f i c e rw ho di d notm a t c h the de s c r i pt i on W a ke f i e l d ha d i ni t i a l l y pr ovi de d. W a ke f i e l d l a t e rr e por t e d t o J a c ob tha the be l i e ve d tha tthe of

f i c e ri nvol ve d i n the 2002 tr a f f i c s t op c oul d ha ve be e n “ K e e ga n, B a rb e r , o rL ig h t.” In F ebruary20 05 , W akef i el d al so fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstO ff i ce rs B arber and D es i l va re gardi ng the Ja nu ary 200 4 i nci dentatthe st orage fa ci l i ty. A tthat t i m e , he a l s o i ndi c a t e d tha tO f f i c e rB a rbe rw a s the one w ho ha d i ni t i a t e d the 2002 tra ff i c s t op . A ft erconfi rm i ng thatO ff i ce r B arber w as no ton du ty on D ec em ber 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , S e r g e a n t J a c o b in f o r m e d W a k e f

ie ld th a t th e d e p a r tm e n t d id n o t p la n to e nt e r t a i n e i the rof

hi s a l l e ga t i ons a nd r e f

e rr e d W a ke f

i e l d t o the F l or i da D e pa r tm e nt of L aw E nforcement a nd the F eder al B ureau o f I nv es t i gat i on s. Ja cob l at erre ce i vedWake fi e ld alsoname d s e veral Cit y po lic eof fi c e rsa s in div idu al de fendantsin his § 2 19 83 c omp laint . Thedis tric t c ourt , h ow e ver, dis mis se d th eindivi du al de fendantsbe c a us e Wakefield failed to serve process on them. TheCity is, theref ore, theonly

remaining de fenda

nt in t helaws uit . 4 c a l l s f r om tw o F D L E a ge nt s , w ho i nf or m e d hi m tha tthe y di d notpl a n t o pur s ue W a k e f ie ld ’s c o m p la in ts e ith e r . W akef i el d fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstthe C i ty i n federa l court , al l egi ng that the of f i c e r s ’ c onduc t“ w a s c l e a r l y e xc e s s i ve i n l i ghtof the c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s t i ng a tthe t i m e of

the a rr e s t ” a nd s e e ki ng da m a ge s i n the a m ountof $353, 009, 407. 44. 2 F o llo w in g e x te n s iv e d is c o v e ry , th e C ity f ile d a m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a r gui ng tha ti tc oul d notbe he l d l i a bl e unde ra the ory of r e s ponde a ts upe r i or b e c a u s e W a k e f

ie ld h a d f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e in c id e n ts r e s u lte d f r o m a n o f

f ic ia lly ad o p t ed p o l i cy o r cu st o m . W ak efi el d resp o n d ed t o th e C i ty’ s m o t i o n , an d al so m ove d f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , a l l e gi ng tha tthe C i ty ha d a n i l l e ga l pol i c y a nd cust om of autho ri zi ng the use of e xces si ve force agai nstA fr i ca n-A m er i ca ns, had i m pr ope r l y tr a i ne d i t s of f i c e r s , w a s gr os s l y i ndi f

f e r e ntt o pol i c e of

f i c e r s ’ a bus i ve c onduc t , a nd ha d f

a i l e d t o t a ke c or r e c t i ve a c t i ons upon l e a rni ng of i nc i de nt s of exce ss i ve force . A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourtas sum ed thatthe i nci dent s occ urre d as W ak ef ield alleg ed fo r p u rp o se s o f d ec id in g th e m o ti o n , th e c o u rt g ra n ted th e C ity’s m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta nd de ni e d W a ke f i e l d’ s m ot i on. W a k e f ie ld r e a s s e r ts h is c la im s o n ap p e a l r e g a r d in g th e tw o a lle g e d in c id e n ts5

w i th C i ty pol i ce offi ce rs and con t ends thatthe i nci dent s w er e dri ven b y a n o ff i ci al po l i cy and cust om autho ri zi ng the use of e xces si ve force . H e f urther a rgues that the C i ty i s notent i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm entbecause the po l i ce departm entfa i l ed to in v e s tig a te a n d d is c ip lin e o f f ic e r s w h o u s e d s u c h f

o r c e . A c c o r d in g to W a ke f i e l d, S e r ge a ntJ a c ob m i s l e d hi m by t e l l i ng hi m tha tO f f i c e rB a rbe rdi d not w o r k f o rth e p o lic e f

o r c e d u r in g th e r e le v a n t tim e p e r io d , w h ic h c a u s e d h im to i nc orr e c t l y i de nt i f

y the of f i c e ri nvol ve d i n the 2002 tr a f f i c s t op. II. T h is C o u r t r e v ie w s d e n o v o 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. M er ca do v. C i ty of O rl ando , 40 7 F . 3d 11 52 , 11 56 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). S um m ary ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te w h e n th e “p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) . I n m a k in g th is de t e r m i na t i on, w e vi e w a l l of the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the nonm ovi ng pa r ty . M e r c a do, 407 F . 3d a t1156. A m u n i c i p a l i ty i s s u b

j e c tt o l i a b i l i ty u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 “ i f th e p l a i n t i f

f s h o ws tha ta ‘ c us t om ’ or‘ pol i c y ’ of the m uni c i pa l i ty w a s the ‘ m ovi ng f or c e ’ be hi nd the c ons t i tut i ona l de pr i va t i on. ” S e w e l l v. T ow n of L a ke H a m i l t on, 117 F . 3d 488, 4896

( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng M one l l v. N . Y . C i ty D e p’ tof S oc . S e r vs . , 436 U . S . 658, 6 9 0

– 9 4 , 9 8 S . C t. 2 0 1 8 , 2 0 3 5

– 3 8 (1 9 7 8 )) . T h is C o u rt h as d ef in ed a “p o li cy ” a s “a de c i s i on tha ti s of

f i c i a l l y a dopt e d 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 such ra nk thathe or she c ou l d b e s ai d t o b e a ct i ng on behal f of the m un i ci pal i ty. ” I d. A “ c us t om , ” on the othe rha nd, “ i s a pr a c t i c e tha ti s s o s e tt l e d a nd pe r m a ne nt th a t it ta k e s o n th e f

o r c e o f la w .” I d . T o e s tab lis h th e liab ility o f a m u n ic ip a lity base d o n a cust om , “ i ti s gener al l y nec es sa ry t o sho w a per si st entand w i despre ad pr a c t i c e . M or e ove r , a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve know l e dge of s uc h c us t om s m us tbe attri bu t ed t o . . . the m un i ci pal i ty. N orm al l y, ra nd om ac t s or i sol at ed i nci dent s a re i nsuffi ci ent. . . . ” C hu rc h v . C i ty of H un t svi l l e, 30 F . 3d 13 32 , 13 45 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he S up re m e C ou rthas a l so m ade c l ea r that“ the i nadequ ac y of pol i ce tr a i ni ng m a y s e r ve a s a ba s i s f or§ 1983 l i a bi l i ty . ” C i ty of C a nt on v. H a rr i s , 489 U . S . 37 8, 38 8, 10 9 S . C t . 11 97 , 12 04 (198 9). H ow ever , such l i abi l i ty a tt ac hes

“ onl y w he r e the f

a i l ur e t o tr a i n a m ount s t o de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o the r i ght s of pers on s w i th w ho m the po l i ce com e i nt o con t ac t . ” I d. T hi s C ou rtsi m i l ar l y has re cogn i ze d thata m un i ci pal i ty i s l i abl e und er§ 1 98 3 i f the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ury w as c a us e d by a “ pa tt e rn of

i m pr ope rtr a i ni ng” of

pol i c e of

f i c e r s , of w hi c h the m uni c i pa l i ty w a s a w a r e a nd de l i be r a t e l y i ndi f f e r e nt . M e r c a do, 407 F . 3d a t1161.7 III. W e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y gra nt ed the C i ty’ s m ot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. E v e n a s s u m in g , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id , th a t th e in c id e n ts occurre d and thatthe offi ce rs ’ cond uctconst i tut es exce ss i ve force , W akef i el d h as fa i l ed t o cre at e agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctconcerni ng the C i ty’ s l i abi l i ty und er § 1983. W a k e f ie ld f a ile d to s u b m it a n y e v id e n c e th a t th e C ity h a d a n o f f ic ia lly a d o p te d p o lic y a u th o r iz in g th e u s e o f e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e a g a in s t A f

r ic a n - A m e r ic a n s . I n f a c t , the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe ge ne r a l or de r s of the pol i c e de pa r tm e nt i ns truc tof

f i c e r s t o “ us e the m i ni m um a m ountof f or c e ne c e s s a ry t o c ontr ol the su b j ect , ” an d t o u se d ead l y fo rce o n l y “ as a l astreso rt ” i f th e o ffen d er p o ses a g r a v e th r e a t. T h e d e p a r tm e n t’s g e n e r a l o r d e r s f u r th e rs ta te th a t o f

f ic e r s s h o u ld d raw th ei r fi rearm s i n th e l i n e o f d u ty o n l y w h en n ecessary an d sh o u l d u se r e a s ona bl e c a r e w he n doi ng s o. T hus , de s pi t e W a ke f i e l d’ s a s s e r t i ons t o the cont ra ry , there i s no g enui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether a n o ff i ci al po l i cy w a s a “m o v in g f

o r c e ” b e h in d h is a lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l d e p r iv a tio n s . S e e S e w e ll, 1 1 7 F .3 d a t 4 8 9 ( q u o tin g M o n e ll, 4 3 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0

– 9 4 , 9 8 S . C t. a t 2 0 3 5

– 3 8 ) . S i m i l ar l y, W akef

i el d fai l ed t o cre at e agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct concerni ng w hether there w as a “ pers i st entand w i despre ad pract i ce ” of C i ty pol i ce8

o f f ic e r s u s in g e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e . S e e C h u r c h , 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 5 . W h ile W a k e f ie ld a s s e r t s th a ts u c h a c u s t o m i n d e e d e x i s t s , h e p r i n c i p a l l y r e p l i e s u p o n h i s o wn two i n st an ces o f al l eg ed ex cessi v e fo rce t o su p p o rtth atassert i o n . T w o i n ci d en t s, oc c urr i ng appr oxi m a t e l y thi r t e e n m onths apa r t , a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h a c u s to m . S e e id . ( “N o r m a lly , r a n d o m a c ts o ris o la te d in c id e n ts a r e in s u f f ic ie n t . . . .” ) . N ori s O f

f i c e rB a rbe r ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n a us e of f or c e vi ol a t i on i n 1995 dur i ng a pol i c e s hoot i ng s uf f i c i e ntby i t s e l f

t o e s t a bl i s h a “ pe r s i s t e nta nd w id e s p r e a d p r a c tic e ” in th e p o lic e d e p a r tm e n t a s a w h o le . S e e id . I n d e e d , it is no t ew orthy thatfol l ow i ng the un re l at ed 19 95 shoo t i ng i nci dent , the C i ty r ej ec t ed the f i r s tr e c om m e nde d s a nc t i on of 120- hours us pe ns i on f

orO f f i c e rB a rbe ra nd in s is te d o n a h a r s h e rp e n a lty . F u r th e r m o r e , W a k e f ie ld ’s a s s e r tio n th a t th e C ity po l i ce departm entem pl oys s ub st ant i al l y m ore C auca si an than A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n e m pl oy e e s i s note vi de nc e tha ta c us t om of us i ng e xc e s s i ve f

or c e a ga i ns tA f

r i c a nA m eri can s ex i st s. B ecau se W ak efi el d fai l ed t o est ab l i sh “ a p ract i ce th ati s so se tt l ed and p erm anentthati tt akes on the forc e of l aw , ” s ee S ew el l , 11 7 F . 3d at 489, the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de t e r m i ne d tha tthe r e w a s no ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c tr e ga r di ng the e xi s t e nc e of a C i ty c us t om a uthor i z i ng the us e ofWakefield’s brief to this Court also contains a cha rt, purportingto show that Offic er 3 Ba rber was involved in a number of c omplaints for misconduct duringhis nineteen year s of service . Be causeWakefield never submitted this evidenceto the district court, however, it is not prop e rly be fo rethi s Co ur

t. S e eSe lma

n v . Cobb County

Sc h. Di st. , 4 49 F .3 d 1 32 0, 13 32 (1 1th Cir. 2006) (“I

n decidingissues on appeal we consider only evidenc e that wa s part of therec ord be fo rethedis tric t c ourt .” ). In a ny e vent, themerefac t th at ninec omp laint s w e remadeag ains t Offic er B arber over

the cour se of ninete en year s is not sufficient to establish “a persistent and widespre ad practice”of the City . See Church, 30 F .3d at 1345. 9 ex cessi v e fo rce ag ai n stA fri can -A m eri can s. 3 N orha s W a ke f

i e l d c r e a t e d a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rthe al l eged i nci dent s w er e the re sul tof a “ patt ern o f i m prop ertra i ni ng ” of pol i ce of f i c e r s . S e e M e r c a do, 407 F . 3d a t1161. T he r e c or d e s t a bl i s he s notonl y tha tthe C i ty had a f

orm al po l i cy concerni ng the use of e xces si ve force , bu tal so that O ff i ce rs B arber a nd D es i l va w er e a w ar e of thatpo l i cy . F urtherm ore, i n i t s a nsw er t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , the C i ty s t a t e d tha ta l l of i t s of f i c e r s r e c e i ve m a nda t or y us e of f o r c e tr a in in g a n d m u s t c o m p le te e x te n s iv e p s y c h o lo g ic a l a n d b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k s . T hus , W a ke f

i e l d ha s f a i l e d t o putf

or th e vi de nc e of

a “ pa tt e rn of

i m pr ope rtr a i ni ng” t o w hi c h the C i ty w a s de l i be r a t e l y i ndi f f e r e nt . S e e i d. F in a lly , W a k e f

ie ld ’s c la im s th a t S e r g e a n t J a c o b f a ile d to a d e q u a te ly i nv es t i gat e hi s c om pl ai nt s a nd m i sl ed hi m concerni ng the i dent i ty of O ff i ce r B arb erar e in su ff

icien t t o cr ea te a g en u in e iss u e o f m ater ial fac t as to th e C ity’s l i a bi l i ty unde r§ 1983. T he r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tJ a c ob c onduc t e d a prel i m i nary i nv es t i gat i on of W akef i el d’ s c om pl ai nt s a nd , base d o n the fa ctthat10

O ff i ce r B arber w as no ton du ty a tthe t i m e of the fi rs tal l eged i nci dentand t hat th e r e w a s a la c k o f

e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g th e s e c o n d a lle g e d in c id e n t, d e c id e d n o t to p u r s u e a f

o r m a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e s a m e c o n c l u s i o n wa s l a t e rr e a c h e d b y two F D L E agent s t o w ho m W akef i el d com pl ai ned. In any e vent , W akef i el d p rovi des no evi dence atal l thatany a l l eged fai l ure by J ac ob t o suffi ci ent l y i nv es t i gat e w as th e r e s u lt o f

a p o lic y o rc u s to m o f

th e C ity f

o rw h ic h it c a n b e h e ld liab le . B e c a us e W a ke f

i e l d f a i l e d t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta bout w he the rthe tw o a l l e ge d i nc i de nt s oc c ur r e d a s a r e s ul tof a n of f i c i a l pol i c y or i nf or m a l c us t om of

the C i ty , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r ty gr a nt e d the C i ty ’ s m ot i on f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.