FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 57 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 32 62 -CAP DANIEL W . TAYL OR, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us MYRON FREEM AN, et al ., Defen da nt s, SGT. W ESLEY CARMACK, Fu lt on Co un ty D ep ut y

Sh eri ff, Defen da nt- App el le e.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Dan ie l W. T ay lo r, pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee Se rg ean t Wesl ey Carm ackin hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 laws ui t. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . 1 On M ay 7, 2 00 8, Taylorass au lt edhi s wi fe atth ei r ap art m en t co m pl ex , and sh e o bt ai ne d apro te ct iv e o rd er re qu iri ng Tay lo r to st ay away fro m th e ap art m en t. Carm ack-- anoff

-dut y po li ce o ffi cer wh o wo rk edas asec ur it y gu ardat t he ap art m en t co m

pl ex -- was in stru ct edto no ti fy th e p ol ic e if

an y on e sa w Tay lo r on th e p ro pe rty. O n M ay

9, af te r rec ei vi ng a rep ort tha t Taylorwas a t t he ap art m en t, Carm acken te redth e ap artm en t, fo un d Taylor , andatt em pt edto arre sthi m . W

he n Tay lo r res is te d a rres t, a p hysic al st ru gg le en su ed , du rin g wh ic h C arm acksh ot Tay lo r in th e fo ot . As a res ul t o f th e Ma y 9 i nc id en t, Taylor was co nv ic te d o f bu rg lary , agg rav at edass au lton a pe ace o ffi cer, an d o bs tru ct io n o f a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. Tay lo r fi le d aciv il rig ht s co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Ca rm ack , pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, as se rti ng cla im s o f il le ga l en try, fals e arr es t, fa ls e im pr is on m en t, an d

We construe liber ally

pro se plea dings. Ta

nnenbaum v. United States, 148 F .3d 1262, 1 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 2ex ces si ve for ce. Fol lo win g i ts fri vo li ty revi ew un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A, the 2 di st ric t co urt d is m is se d Taylor ’s fal se arres t an d fa ls e im pr is on m en t cl ai m s as ba rredby H eckv. Hu m

ph rey, 11 4 S .Ct. 2 36 4 (1 99 4) , con cl ud in g t ha t h e fai le d t o de m on st rat e th athi s d et en ti on ha d b een rev ers edor i nv al id at ed . The co urt al lo wedTay lo r’s ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m to pro ceed , bu t fa il edto ad dr es s Taylor ’s il le ga l en try clai m . The d is tri ctco urt t he n g ran te d Def en dantCarm ack ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. On ap pe al , Tay lo r rea ss ert edhi s cl ai m s fo r fal se arre stan d fa ls e im pr is on m en t. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to di sm is s fo r

3

Taylor also asser

ted a c laim for re taliation but presents no argument on this iss ue on 2 appea l. Thus, that issue is abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). In his appellate brief, Ta ylor states that he strug g led with the litigation af ter the district court de nied his reque st for replace ment appointed counse l and that Carmac k failed to c omply with various discover

y reque sts. Bec ause he failed to pre sent meaning ful argument on either of these issues, they

are also dee med aba

ndoned. See id. Taylor also asser

ts that Carmack inva ded his right to privacy , committed criminal 3 trespass, a

nd sear ched his home a

nd seized him in vi olation of the F ourth Amendment. The se claims wer e ra ised for the first time in Taylor’s motion for leave to file a n amende d complaint, which the district cour

t denied. B eca

use Tay lor had a lrea dy

filed four amendments to his complaint, filed his motion for leave to amend we ll after the discovery period ha d closed, a

nd relied on the same unde rlying f acts set f orth in his earlier

complaints, the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying him leave to amend. See J ameson v. Ar row Co., 75 F.3d 1528, 1535 (11th Cir. 1996) (c oncludingthat, g iven plaintiff’s de lay in seekingto amend her

complaint for the third time a

nd her prior knowledg e of the fac ts givingrise to her new c laim, the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying pla intiff’s motion for leave to amend). Thus, Taylor’s cla ims were not r aised prope rly below, and w ill not be considered on a ppeal. See Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 3fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A. Box er X v . Harri s, 4 37 F.3d 4 11 07 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e m ay affi rm on an y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e reco rd . Birc ol l v . Mia m i-Da de Cn ty., 48 0 F .3d10 72 , 10 88 n.2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7)
. Und er Heck , a st at e p ris on er m ay no t b rin g acla im

forda m ag es un de r se ct io n 1 98 3 i f “ a jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e p la in ti ff wo ul d n eces sa ril y im pl y th e in va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on .” 11 4 S .Ct. 2 36 4, 2 37 2 (1 99 4) . A clai m can no t b e di sm is se d a s b arre d b y

Heck , ho wev er, i f iton ly “wou ldim pu gn anan ti ci pa te d fu tu re co nv ic ti on .” W al la ce v . Kato , 12 7 S .Ct. 1 09 1, 1 09 8 (2 00 7) (em ph as is
om it te d) (no ti ng th at , insu cha cas e, “ itis withi n t he po wer o f th e d is tri ctco urt,
an d i n a cco rdwith c omm onpra ct ic e, to st ay th e ci vi l ac ti on un ti l t he cri m in al cas e orth e li ke li ho odof acri m in al cas e is en de d.” ). W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de te rm in in g t ha t Taylor ’s cla im s fo r fal se arre stan d fa ls e im pr is on m en t wer e b arre d u nd er Heckbe cau se -- as Defen da ntCarm ackco nc ed es -- Tay lo r ha d n oty etbe enco nv ic te d wh enth e
Although T aylor’s notice of appea l specified only

that he wa s appea ling the district 4 court’s or der grantingCarmac k’s motion for summary judgme nt, an appe al from a final judgment bring s up for re view all pre cedingnon-final orders. See Ba rfield v. B rierton, 883 F .2d 923, 930- 31 (11th Cir. 1989). Thus, we ha ve jurisdiction to review

Taylor’s fa lse arr est and fa lse imprisonment claims, which wer e dismissed befor e ser vice of proce ss, pursuant to section 1915A. To the extent that Taylor argues that he w as fa lsely arr ested a

nd imprisoned in violation of state law , howeve r, he ha s waived the se cla ims by failingto raise them in either his origina l or amende d complaints. See Ac cess Now , Inc., 385 F .3d at 1331. 4di st ric t co urt co nduc te d i ts fri vo li ty revi ew. See Wall ace, 1 27 S.Ct . at 1 09 8.

Nev erthe le ss , bec au se Tay lo r ul ti m at el y was c on vi ct edof o bs tru ct io n o f a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer i n v io la ti on of O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 10 -2 4 -- whi ch requi res an of fic er t o b e en ga ge d i n t he lawf ul pe rfo rm an ce o f hi s dut ie s -- an d Taylorfai ls to de m on st rat e th athi s co nv ic ti on was re ve rs edor i nv al id at ed , hi s cl ai m s fo r fal se arre stan d fa ls e im

pr is on m en t ar e n ow b arre d b y Heck . As a res ul t, we co nc lu de th at , alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt erredin di sm is si ng th es e cl ai m s p rem atur el y , th e erro r was ha rm le ss . For the same reaso n, t he di st ric t co urt’s erro r infai li ng to ad dr es s Taylor ’s il le ga l en try clai m was h arm le ss be cau se th atcla im is als o n ow ba rredby H eck
. Tay lo r al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredingra nt in g C arm acksu m m ary jud gm en t o n h is ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f
su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o; an d we v ie w th e ev id en ce an d a ll reas on ab le factua l in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Sko p v . Cit y of Atl an ta , 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 36 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). “ Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if t he ev id en ce es tabl is he s ‘no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al fact
an d t ha t the m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.’” McC orm ic k v. Ci ty of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 33 3 F .3d12 34 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (c))
. 5“ The Fo urth Am en dm en t’s fre ed om fro m un reas on ab le sea rch es an d
se iz ur es en co m

pa ss es th e p la in rig htto be free fro m th e u se of e xc es si ve for ce i n th e co ur se of a n a rres t.” Id . at 1 24 4. In ev al ua ti ng whet he r th e fo rce u se d dur in g
anarre stwas o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e, we m us t co nduc t a c as e-b y -cas e rev ie w, ex am in in g “ th e 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 a tt em

pt in g t o e va de arres t b y

fli gh t.” Gra ha m

v. Co nn or , 10 9 S.Ct . 18 65 , 18 72 (19 89 ). W e h av e co nc lu de d t ha t t he Co ns ti tu ti on als o “ pe rm it [s ] th e u se of d ead ly force ag ai ns t a s us pe ctwho po se s n otm erel y anesc ap e ri sk (b ecau se he is no t yet in po li ce co nt ro l), b utals o a n i m m in en t d an ge r to a po li ce of fic er o r othe rs .” McC orm ic k, 3 33 F.3dat 1 24 6 (c on cl ud in g t ha t anoff ic er’s de ci si on to sh oo t the su sp ectwas o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e whe n t he off ic er h ad pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e su sp ectha d c omm it te d avi ol en t fe lo ny, reas on ab ly perce iv edth atth e su sp ectpo se d a n i m m in en t t hr eatof v io le nc e to th e of fic er an d o th ers , andwher e th e su sp ectig no redrep eat edco m m an ds to dro p h is weap on ). Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Tay lo r, we co nc lu de th atCarm ack ’s us e o f de ad ly force was o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. Fir st , Carm ack
was aware o f Tay lo r’s as saul t o n h is wife an d t he pro te ct iv e o rd er ag ai ns t Taylor
6an d h adpro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atTay lo r was tre sp as si ng in vi ol at io n o f th at

or de r. See O.C.G.A. § 1 9- 13 -1 (2 ) (d efi ni ng act s o f “ fam il y vi ol en ce” t o i nc lu de cri m in al tre sp as s) . The ev id en ce al so de m on st rat es th atTay lo r po se d a n i m m in en t da ng er t o C arm ack . Tay lo r ad m it te d t ha t h e was he av il y in to xi cat edan d “ an gry ” whe n the in ci de ntoc curred . In h is de po si ti ontes ti m on y , he s ta te d tha t, af te r Carm acksec ur edon e o f hi s wri st s i n h an dc uf fs , Tay lo r pu ll edaway

an d s wun g th e h an dc uf

fs in to Carm ack ’s for eh ead . He th enatt ack edCarm ackph y si cal ly, pu nc hi ng hi m

in th e b ack , ho ld in g h im fro m be hi ndun ti l h e g ai ne d c on tro l o f Carm ack ’s up pe r bo dy, andrefu si ng to letgo . Mean whi le , du rin g t hi s at ta ck , Carm ackwas h ol di ng -- an d s tru gg li ng to m ai nt ai n c on tro l o ve r -- a l oa de d g un . On t hi s re co rd , we can no t s ay th atCarm ack ’s dec is io n t o s ho otTay lo r in th e fo ot
was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Becau se no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o ccu rred , we wil l n otad dr es s C arm ack ’s qu al ifi edimm un it y de fen se . AFFIR MED.

7