### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 26 , 2 004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1388 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 01- 0131 8- CV -3 -J -2 5T JC D A RL EN E M. KE SIN G E R, a s P er sona l Representative of the E state of Charle s Scott Ke singer, and as Mother and N atural G uard ian of

Ch ar le s B rande n K es ing er and Chad Scott Ke singer, Surviving Mino r Children of the De ceased, Charles S cott Kesinger, Plaintiff, RO BIN H . CO NN E R, a s P er sona l R ep re se ntativ e of the E state of Charle s Scott Ke singer, and as the Attorney

Ad L item

of Charle s Branden K es ing er and C ha d S co tt K es ing er , S urviv ing Mi nor Ch ildre n of

the D ec ea se d, Ch ar le s S co tt Ke singer, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us THOMAS HERRINGTON, D ef en dant- Appe llant, N A T H A N IE L G L O V E R, S he ri ff

of the Consol idated City

of Jacksonvil le, D ef en dant.Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District J udg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 26, 200 4) Before TJO FL AT and HI LL , C ircuit Judg es, and MILL S , D istrict Judg e. * HI LL , C ircuit Judg e: Inthi s c as e the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e ind ivi dua l de fe ndant’ s m oti on f or su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ba si s t ha t h e was no t en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . For the following rea sons , w e find that the defendant is entitled to qualified im m uni ty . W e re ve rs e the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt and r em an d w ith instructio ns that the dis trict court grant the defe ndant’s m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND T he E state of

Ch ar le s S co tt K es ing er

( K es ing er ) fi le d atw o- co unt c ivi l action against th e Jacksonvill e Sher iff’ s Of fice ( JSO) and Deputy

Of ficer Thom as H er ri ngt on r es ult ing f

ro m the sho oti ng d eath o f K es ing er by H er ri ngt on. C ount

I is a claim under 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 (Sec tion 1 983) that Herr ingto n viol atedCount I Iinvolved a cla im ag ainst the J SO under the America ns with Disabiliti es Ac t 1 (ADA ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. I t w a s d ism iss e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

and is n ot p art

of thi s a pp e a l. 3 Ke singer’ s Fourth Am endm ent right to be free f rom unlawful seizure when H er ri ngt on a lle ge dly

e nga ge d in“ ex ce ssi ve , ina ppr opr ia te , unn ec es sary

and de ad ly force ag ai ns t [Ke si ng er] in th e co ur se of a n i nv es ti ga to ry en co un te r.” 1 H er ri ngt on, apol ic e of

fi ce r, c la im ed

he w as e nti tle d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty for the shootin g. T he district court disagreed and denied hi s m otion for sum m ary ju d g m en t . It fo u n dth at du e t o co n fl i ct i n g t es t i m o n y b et we en He rr i n g t o n ’s re ndi tio n of

the f ac ts, a s th e m ovi ng p ar

ty , and o ne e y ew itn es s’ r en dit ionof the fa ct s, m at er ia l i ssu es of

dis put ed f ac ts e xis te d. T he re fo re , in pa ssi ng u pon a sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as r equir ed to ac ce pt the ve rs ion
m ost favorable to the non -m ovant, Ke singer. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. H errin gto n’

s V er sio n of theF ac ts D ur ing bus y

e ar ly m or nin g r ush hour tr af fi c on I nte rs ta te -9 5, H er

ri ngt on wa s driving to work at the P olice Mem orial Building in downtown Jacksonv ille, Fl or ida , in his unm ar

ke d patr ol c ar . H e obse rv ed K es ing er , w hom

he pe rc ei ve d to be ade range d, c ra ze d m an , standi ng i n th e m idd le of the int er state hig hw ay , f ac ing he av y on co m in g t raff

ic , wit h h is ha nd s ra is ed , pal m s o ut , ov er h is he ad .4

He rrington sto pped and parked his car in the insid e em ergency

lane. H e ra dioed dis pa tc h f or a ssi stanc e w ithan a

ppare nt s uic ide . K es ing er be gan w al kin g f

ro m lane to lane , in anappare nt atte m pt t o harm

him se lf and o the rs by

pur pose fu lly tr y ing to stand i n f

ro nt o f fa st- m ovi ng c ar s and s em i- tr ai le r tr uc ks. He rrington was dressed in civilian clothes with a detective badge displ ay ed on h is b el t. L eavin g hi s gun init s ho lst er on the f ro nt s eat of

the c ar , he got

out of his car, y elled “ HE Y! ” at the see m inglysuicidal m an, and m otion ed for him to get out of the onco m ing traffic im m ediately . In rea ction, K esinger turned and started
m ovi ng quic kly

tow ar d H er

ri ngt on, appe ar ing angr

y and r ea dy

to fi ght , w ithhis arm s raised, palm s out, scream ing ob scenely : “ You see this, y ou see this . . . I am Jesus Christ, y ou m otherfucker! I am going to die and so are y ou!” Th u s th re at en ed , He rr i n g t o n ra n t o h i s ca r f o r s af et y, ro l l edup th e d ri v er ’s sid e tin te d w ind ow , loc ke d th e door s, and r ad ioe d f or he lp a se co nd t im e. B y

thi s tim e, K es ing er

ha d m ove d to the r ear of H er ri ngt on’ s c ar

and s tart ed

a tta ck ing the car. H er ri ngt on t es tif

ie d th at he he ar d an e xpl osi on s im ilar to a gun shot bla st f ro m the rear end of his car, and that the rear window broke inwardly . He rrington was hit by the f ly ing gla ss. H e lay

down a cr oss the f

ro nt s eat and unhol ste re d hi s gun. Ke singer then m oved to th e driver’ s side window. He rrington heard another gu ns ho t-l ik e ex pl os io n. Hi s t in te d s id e win do w bro ke in a sp id er-we bb edpa tt ern .5

N owbe lie vin g th at

K es ing er ha d sh ot at hi m

tw ic e, H er

ri ngt on, c ro uc hin g onthe fr ont se at of his c ar , tur

ne d and f ir ed in se lf de fe nse thr oughthe spi de rl ike win do w. H er ri ngt on the n c al le d di spatc h athi rd ti m e an d to ld the m

that he ha d sh ot his a ssa ilant. H e as ke d f

or an am bul an ce and a

sup er vis or . H er

ri ngt on o pe ne d th e door , havin g to pus h hard a ga ins t K es ing er ’ s bo dy

a s he did so. H e tr ai ne d hi s we apon on him

until h e determ ined that Kesinger w as no long er a threat. K esinger ha d c oll ap se d do w n th e dr ive r’ s si de doo r an d la y on the gr ound , m orta lly
w ound ed . B. E ye wi tness W

ill iam M ic hae l M ale y’ s V er sio n of theF ac ts Although there w ere several ey ew itnesses at the scene, the district court fo cu se d on ly

on the te sti m ony

of one ind ivi dua l, W ill iam

Mi ch ae l M al ey , w ho
w itn es se d th e shoo tin g. Ma le y w as in his c ar

w ithhis w ind owdown, m ovi ng slowly through the rubbernecked traf fic, when his car

pulled first behind , and then al on gs id e, th e p as se ng er s id e o f Herri ng to n’s v eh ic le , androl le d t o ast op . He te st ifi edth athe ha d acle ar v ie w of t he alt erca ti on . Ma le y dis put es H er

ri ngt on’ s st at em en t tha t K es ing er str uc k th e ba ck

of his car onlyone tim e. Instead Maley claim s that Kesinger struck the trunk of the car
m ult ipl e tim es w ithhis f

ist , and the n turn ed

and s tr uc k th e re ar

w ind owf

ive to6

se ve n ti m es , a ct

ua lly c hip pin g aw ay

a t i t w ithhis f

ist unt il it br oke thr ough en tir el y a ll the w ay

up h is arm . Ma le y

a lso te sti fi ed

that K es ing er

m ove d to the dr iv er’s s id e an d b an ge d o n t he roo f. Maley claim s that Kesinger then appeare d to be exhaust ed. Ke singer m oved tw o st ep s ba ck

and t o th e ri ght , too k af ewbr eaths , and a

ppe ar ed to ce as e his atta ck . I t w as the n, Ma le y c la im s, that M al ey

sawali ght , w hic h he pe rc ei ve d to be the driver’ s side doo r opening, and saw tw o shot s fired through an open door, not th e spiderlike window, while K esinger wa s in repose. Ma ley testified that K es ing er f el l, not f or w ar d, a ga ins t the dr ive r’ s do or , but ba ckw ar d, a ga ins t the cen te r m ed ia n c on cret e d iv id er, b efo re fal li ng to th e g ro un d. A lth oughnot

dis cu sse d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, the a ff idavit s and t es tim ony

of tw o othe r ey ew itn es se s, Caro ly n W ill iam s and J am es A m m ons, c or ro bor at e the st at em en ts pro vi de d b y

off ic er Herr in gt on an d t he ph y si cal ev id en ce p res en te d. The y do no t s up po rt t he tes ti m on y pro vi de d b y

Mal ey . C. Th e D ire ct

Phy sic al E vi de nc e Prese nte d The f orensic detective at the scene testified that pho tographic evidence indicated: (1) that He rrington’s vehicle w as not m oved after the shooting ; (2) that K es ing er w as not m ove d a ft er

he w as sho t; (3 ) that K es ing er w as standi ng im m ed ia te ly out sid e the c ar

w he n he w as sho t, not

f ive or sixf ee t aw ay a ga ins t a7

co nc re te div ide r; ( 4) that hi s bo dy lay , not ne ar the div ide r but

so c los e to H er ri ngt on’ s ve hic le that hi s f ee t w er e phot ogr ap he d un de rn eath the ve hic le ; ( 5) that the re w as a

bul le t ho le in H er

ri ngt on’ s dr ive r’ s si de w ind ow ; ( 6) that the angl e of the bul le ts i ndi cate d th at abul le t w en t thr oughthe w ind owf ro m the ins ide out , n o tth ro u g h an o p en d o o r; (7 ) t h at th er e w as g l as s fo u n do n t o p o f K es i n g er ’s body , ind ic at ing his c los e pr oxi m ity to the c ar ; and ( 8) that K es ing er ’ s bl ood co ve redth e d riv er’s s id e win do w. Dozens of photographs we re taken at the scene, both from a ground level an d an a er ia l vi ew . T he y c le ar ly de pic t the loc at ionof

H er ri ngt on’ s ve hic le on the interstate, the posit ion of Kesinger’ s bodyin relation to the car, and the broken wi n d o ws o f H erri n g t o n ’s ca r. Th e p h o t o g rap h s ar e c o n s i s t en twi th He rr i n g t o n ’s te sti m ony and the te sti m ony

of the f or en sic de te ct ive . T he y

are inc onsi ste nt w ith Ma le y ’ s pe rc ep tio ns. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w de nov o th e d e n i a l o f amo t i o n f

o r s u mm a ry ju d g men tb y a dis tr ic t c ourt onthe ba sis of qua lif ie d im m uni ty , c onstru ing a ll fa ct s and m ak ing al l re as on ab le 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 art y . See Co ttr el l v
. Ca ldw el l , 85 F. 3d 14 80, 1486 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). H owever , a m ere sc int ill a of

e vid en ce in supp ort of

the non -m ovi ng p ar

ty ’ s po sit ionis ins uf

fi ci en t8

to de feat a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Anderson v. L iberty Lobby, Inc. , 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). IV. DISCUSSI ON A
. E xc es siv e F

orc e & Q ual ifi ed

I m m uni ty T he a ff irm at ive de fe nse of

qua lif ie d im m uni ty pr ote ct s pu

bli c ac tor s f

ro m lia bil ity unl es s th ei r co nduc t vi olate s “ cl earl y e sta bli she d st at

uto ry or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own . Harlow v. F itz ge rald , 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). A n officer will be e ntitled to qualified im m uni ty if his a ct ion s w er e obj ec tiv el y r ea sona ble , that i s, if

an ob j ec tiv el y reasonable office r in the sam e situation cou ld have believed that the force used was no t ex ces si ve . A nde rso n v . Cr ei ghton , 10 7 S .Ct. 3 03 4 (1 98 7) . F r o m a b u r d e n o f

p r o o f s t a n dp o i n t , i n o r d e r

t o r e c e i v e qu a l i f

i e di mm u n i t y, the publ ic actor m

ust prov e that he w as acting within the scope of his dis cretionary au th or it y when th e al le ge dl y

wron gf ul act s o ccu rred . V

iny ard v. W

ils on , 311 F . 3d 1340 , 1346 (11 Cir. 2002 ) ci tin g L eev . F errar o , 284 F. 3d 11 88, 1194 (11 Cir. th th 2002 )( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). I f he c ando this , the bur de n th enshi ft s to th e p la in ti ff t o e st ab li sh th atqu al ifi edimm un it y is no t ap pr op ria te . Id
. H er e it is c le ar

that H er ri ngt on w as a ct ing w ith in the sc ope of his dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity w he n he int er

ve ne d inK es ing er ’ s a

ppare nt s uic ide a tte m

ptThe Supreme Court in Graham made e x plicit what was implicit in Ga rn e r’ s ana ly sis , 2 that is, “ all

c la ims that la

w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs have us e d e xce ssi ve fo rc e – d e a dly or no t – i n the cour se of a

n arr est, investigatory

stop, or other “ seizure” of a fr ee c itiz en should be a naly zed 9 an d wh en th e sh oo ti ng oc cu rred . V iny ard , 311 F . 3d at 13 46. Und er Fl or id a la w, even a private ac tor is justified in the use of deadly force if he re asonablybelieves that su chf

or ce is ne ce ssary

to pr ev en t i m

m ine nt d eath o r gr eat bo dil y harm to hi m se lf o r to pre ve nt th e imm in en t co m m is si on of a for ci bl e fel on y . See F la . S ta t. § 7 76 .01 2. T he bur de n th enshi ft s to K es ing er ’ s e state to es ta bli sh tha t H er

ri ngt on v i o l at edKe s i n g er ’s co n s t i tu t i o n al ri g h t s . We m u s td et er m i n e w h et h erap p el l an t ’s al le ga ti on s, i f true , il lu st rat e th ata co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n h as oc cu rred . V iny ard , 311 F. 3d at 13 46; Sauc ie r v . Ka tz , 121 S . Ct . 215 1 ( 2001 ). I f ind ee d a co nst itu tio na l r igh t w oul d have be envio la te d un de r the appe llant’ s ve rs ionof the fact s, we m

us t n ex t as k wh et he r th atrig ht was c le arl y est ab li sh ed . Id

. B
. E xc es siv e F

orc e & Co nst itu tio nal

V iolati on The F ourth Am endm ent’ s free dom from unreasonable searches and seizures al so e nc om

pa sse s th e ri ght

to be f re e fr om the use of

e xc es siv e fo rc e in the c our se of an in ve st ig at ory

st op , or o th er “ se iz ur e” o f th e p ers on . G raha m v . Co nnor , 109 S. Ct . 186 5, 186 7 ( 1989 ); see Te nnessee v. Garner , 105 S . Ct . 169 4, 169 9- 1707 (1 985) . T he “ re as ona

ble ne ss” inquir

y in ane xc es siv e fo rc e ca se is anobj ec tiv e 2under the Four th Amendment and its “re asonable ness” standa rd, rather than unde r a “ substantive due proc ess” a

pproac h. Graham , 109 S.Ct . at 1871. Analy zing the objec tive rea sonablene ss of the for ce use d “re quires a c are ful balanc ing 3 of ‘t he natur e and

qu a lity of the int ru sio n o n a

n in div idu a l’ s F ourt

h Ame ndme nt i nte re sts ’ a g a ins t the counter

vailing g overnme nt interests at stake.” Graham , 109 S.Ct . at 1871 citing Te rry , 105 S.Ct . at 1699. To dete rmine whe ther the a mount of forc e used by

a police of

fice r wa s proper , a c ourt mus t a sk wh e the r a

re a so na ble of fi c e r w ou ld b e lie ve that th is l e ve l of fo rc e is n e c e ssa

ry in the situation at hand. Se eCot tre ll , 85 F.3d at 1492 (wher e the c ourt consider s the fac ts and circ umstances c onfrontingan off icer , without reg ard to the of fice r’s unde rlying intent or mot ivatio n, to d e te rm ine wh e the r t he ir a c tio ns are ob

je c tiv e ly re a so na ble ). Th e ob

je c tiv e ly rea sonablene ss standard “ require s car eful attention to the facts and c ircumstance s of ea ch particula r ca se, includingthe seve rity of the c rime at issue, whe ther the suspe ct poses an imm e diate thr e at to the sa fe ty of the of fi c e rs or oth e rs , a nd wh e the r h e is a c tiv e ly

re sis tin garr e st or attemptingto evade arr est by flig ht.” Graham , 109 S.Ct . at 1875.

10 one : the que sti on i s whe the r the of fi ce r’ s a ct ion s are “ obj ec tiv el y r ea sona ble ” in lig ht o f the f

ac ts and c ir cum stanc es c onf ro nti ng h im , w ith out

r eg ar d to his un de rlyin g i nt en t o r m ot iv at io n. Id
. a t 18 72. I t m

ust be j udge d f

ro m the pe rs pe ct ive of

ar ea sona

ble of fi ce r on the sc en e, r athe r than w iththe 20/ 20 v isi on of hi nd si gh t. Id

. , c iti ng T erryv . O hio , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 1879-1881 (1968). 3 Appe llant m

ust e sta bli sh tha t H er

ri ngt on’ s f

at al sho oti ng w as obj ec tiv el y un reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces . G raha m , 109 S . Ct . a t 18 72. W e m ust co nsi de r H er

ri ngt on’ s a ct ion s f

ro m the pe rs pe ct ive of

ar ea sona

ble of fi ce r on the sc en e, rat he r th an th ro ug h t he len s o f hi nd si gh t, id. , takin g in to a cc ount a ll of the at te nd an t ci rcu m st an ces . Id
. a t 18 65.He rr ington c ho se to s top and

ra dio fo r h e lp. In h is unma rk e d p atr ol c ar, no on e wo uld 4 have known had he c hosen not to. Her ring ton only

rec alls single blows by

Kesing er to the ba ck and side of the patrol car . 5 Ma le y te sti fi e d th at K e sin g e r i nf lic te d mu lti ple blo ws to t

he ba c k o f t

he c ar a nd a lso mul tip le blows to the roof a

nd side of the c ar. In eac h instance it see ms that the blow that broke the r ear window and the blow on the driver’ s side window conve y ed to Her ring ton that shots had been fired. 11 H er e H er ri ngt on e nc ount er ed

ahig hly vol at ile sit

ua tio n f ra ught w ith dange r. K es ing er , an ob vio usl y de range d and c ra ze d m an , w as se em ing ly tr y ing 4 to c om m it sui ci de by

c au sin g am oto r ve hic le to hit him on a bus y int er state hig hw ay . I t i s ob vio us tha t K es ing er pos ed an im m ed ia te thr eat of

harm , not

onl y to h im se lf

and t o H er

ri ngt on, but

to doz en s of

oth er m oto ri sts that m or

nin g. Ke singer also behaved in an aggressive and belligerent m anner. H e turned a n dmo v e dqu i c k l y t o w a r dH e rr i n g t o n , an g ry a n dr e a dy t o f i g h tw i th h i s arms r a i s e d . He c l a i medt o b e J e s u s C h r i s t , an ds t a t e dth a th e wa s g o i n g t o d i e th a td a y, an d th at H er ri ngt on w as goi ng t o di e al so. Whe n he f ir ed a t K es ing er , H er

ri ngt on tho ught that K es ing er

ha d sh ot at hi m

f ir st. 5 Ma le y ’ s ve rs ionof

the f ac ts d if fe re d f ro m H er ri ngt on’ s bu t no t i n any m at er ia l w ay . Ma le y ’ s ve rs ionsho uld not be m isc onstru ed

a s di sput ed

m er el y be cau se th ey

are t ak en ou t o f co nt ex t. A s he dr ove by , Ma le y

w as able to pr ovi de onl y a“ sna psho t” ve rs ionof
w ha t ha ppe ne d onI -9 5 th at

day . H e w as ne ith er

pr ivy to the se ri es of

e ve nts12

le ad ing up t o th at

sna psho t, nor

w as he pr ivy

to the phy sic al e vid en ce a t the sc en e aft er h e d ro ve away . D ue to the pos iti on o f Ma le y ’ s c ar , in or de r to s ee the e ve nts le ad ing up t o the shoo ting, Maley

wa s forced to look throu gh the tin ted glass of the passeng er s i d e w i n d o w, a cr o s s th e f ro n ts ea to f t h e c ar , a n dth ro u g h th e g l as s o n th e d ri v er ’s si de . Mal ey

co ul d o nl y

see Kesi ng er fro m

th e sh ou ld ers up . Ma le y ’ s te sti m ony , if

a cc ep te d, w oul d be the ve rs ionm ost f av or ab le to the non- m ovi ng p ar

ty . H ow ev er , it

is in d ir ec t c onf

lic t w iththe unanim ous te sti m ony of the oth er e y ew itn es se s, and i s c ontra dic te d by the und isp ute d, c le ar ly de m on st rat ed , ph ot og rap he d p hysic al ev id en ce. In addition , Ma ley ’ s testim ony is incons istent with the initi al w ritten state m en ts tha t he m ad e to the pol ic e, and whic h he r ea dil y a dm its that he int en tio na lly

sig ne d. Ma le y

e xpl ai ns the se inc onsi ste nc es m er el y by say ing that he sig ne d th e state m en ts, kno w ing the m to be f al se a t the ti m e, be ca

use he w an te d th e of fic ers to lea ve an d g etou t o f hi s h ou se . Inhis te sti m ony , Ma le y

state s th at

he c annot

e xpl ai n w hy

his pe rc ep tio n of th e sc en e is in co ns is te nt wit h t he ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce t ha t h e rev ie wed . Ma le y ’ s ve rs ionof

the f ac ts i s no t su

bst an tia l e vid en ce and m

ust be dis re gard ed .The c ourt in Vinyard ide nti fi e d thre e c ate g or ie s o f f a ir and c le ar w arn ingfo r u s to 6 examine. Id. (1 ) F ir st, we loo k to se e wh e the r t he fe de ra l st atut e or

c on sti tut ion a l pr ov isi on

is s o clea r, and the conduct is so bad, that it pre cludes qua lified immunit y even in the total a

bsence of case law. Id. Second, if the c onduct is not bad enough that it violates a constitutional provision on its face , we look to ca se law that can be applied broa dly to a number of

fac tual situations. Id. at 1351. Third, and f

inally , if no broad c ase la w is applicable , we turn to c ase la w pre cede nt that is tied to the facts. Id. 13 W e co nc lud e that the re w as no s ubst an tia l e vid en ce c ontrary to that of the te sti m ony of H er ri ngt on, W ill iam s, A m

m ons, and the f

or en sic de te ct ive on the sc en e, and the pho tog ra

phi c ev ide nc e adm itt ed . Am er e sc int ill a of e vid en ce in supp ort of the non-m ovant is in sufficient to defeat a m otion for sum

m ary jud gm en t. A nde rso n , 106 S. Ct. at 2512. He rrington’s estate has not establis hed th atth e sh oo ti ng was o bjec ti ve ly unr eas on ab le , gi ve n t he cir cu m st an ces . No co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n i s p res en t.

C. E xc es siv e F

orc e & Clea rlyE

sta bli she d L aw E ve n if w e w er e to a ssum e hy

pothe tic al ly

that H er ri ngt on a ct

ua lly did violate Kesinger’ s Fourth Am endm ent rights, it could no t be said however that H er ri ngt on v iol at ed

any c le ar ly e sta bli she d law . B ef

or e qua lif ie d im m uni ty is sur re nde re d by

an of fi ce r, he or

she is en tit le d to f

ai r an d c le ar

w ar nin g th at the ch al le ng edco nd uc t v io la te s fe de ral ly pro te ct edrig ht s. Se e V iny ard , 311 F. 3d at 1350 . 6Th e c los e st c a se we have fo un d is Merc ado v. City of Orlando , ____ F.Supp.2d ____, 7 2004 WL1443939 (M.D.F la., 2004), whe re two police office rs, fa ced w ith a man who wa s threateningto commit sui cide, who w as holdinga knife with two hands, pointing it at his hear t and re fusingto drop it after beingorder ed at lea st twice to do so, shot the plaintiff in the hea d with a Sag e launc her, f

rac turinghis skull and causinglasting br ain damag e. The district cour

t found that bec ause the office rs wer e try ing to r esolve a

n attempted suicide, rather than to ha lt the prog ression of a crime, the case did not fit neatly into the Graham analy sis (discussed above at our Part IV.B ). Unlike the suicida l appellant in our c ase, the plaintiff in Merc ado did not pose an immediate thre at to anyone, other than himself. Id. at * 4. He wa s neither a g g ressive nor bellige rent. He did not threaten the office rs ver bally or phy sically . Id. Even then the Merc ado district court found that c lear ly established law ha d not been violated and that the of

fice rs wer e entitled to qualified immunity . Id. at * 7. The same is espec ially true in our ca se. 14 W e have f

ound no p re ex ist ing c as e lawinv olv ing m at er ia lly sim ilar fa ct s that w oul d gi ve ar ea sona ble pol ic e of

fi ce r fa ir and c le ar w ar nin g th at sho oti ng a craz ed m an, intent upon causin g harm to him self and others, including th e office r w ho h ad r etre at ed a s f ar a s po ssi ble , and h as a ct ed in se lf de fe nse , vio la te d th e Co nst itu tio n. Se e G arr et t v . A the ns- Clark e Co unt y, G a. , _
_ _ F. 3 d_ _ _ , 2 0 0 4 WL 7 1700 118 (11 Cir. , July

30, 2004)(wher e defe ndants d id not use excessive force th when they

fetter ed the plaintiff after he w as m ad e co m

pli an t thr oughthe use of pe ppe r spr ay ). H er e H er

ri ngt on a ct ed

in se lf de fe nse . H e did

not vio la te the Co ns ti tu ti on or a ny clear ly establ is he d l aw. He is en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . V. CONCLUSION Ba se d up on the f

or eg oin g, the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r ev er se d and thi s c as e is r em an de d w ithins tr uc tio ns t o gr an t hi s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. RE VE RSE D and REMA

ND ED with IN ST RUC TI ON S.