FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 2, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1079 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-20467 -CV -A SG SH ARO N MO RE TT A, as guardian of Isaiah A llen, a m inor, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MAR IAAB BOT T, Miam i-Da d CountyPolice O f f i c e r , i nh e r

i n d i v i du a l an do f

f i c i a l c ap a c i ty, YO LA ND A R IV ER

A, Miam i-Da de CountyPolice O f f i c e r , i nh e r

i n d i v i du a l an do f

f i c i a l c ap a c i ty, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 2, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and S IL E R, * C ir cu it Judg es . PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble Eug ene Siler, Jr., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by desig nation.Of fi c e r R ive ra

(b ut n ot O ff

ic e r A bb ott ) a lso mov e d in

the dis tr ic t c ourt

to d ism iss 1 pla int if f’ s st ate law c la im a g a ins t he r f or a ssa ult and batte ry , c la imi ngthat sh e is e nti tle d to officia l immuni ty

under F lorida law. The district court denie d Rivera’ s motion, and she now appea ls. W e have no appellate jurisdiction of Rivera’s inter locutory appea l of Florida ’s state law officia l immuni ty . J ones v. Cannon, 174 F .3d 1271, 1293 (11 Cir. 1999); CSX Transp., Inc. v. th Kissimmee Util. Auth., 153 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 1998); Dep’ t of Educ. v. Roe, 679 So.2d 756, 759 (F la. 1996); but see Stoll v. Noel, 694 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla . 1997) (dicta indicatingthat Florida ’s offic ial immunit y is imm unity

from suit). We also dec line to exercise pende nt appellate jurisdiction. 2 O ff ic er s Abbott and R ive ra

( the “ of fi ce rs ”) f ile thi s in te rl oc uto ry

appe al f ro m the district court’ s denial of their m otion to dism iss plain tiff’ s second am ended co m pla int a sse rt ing an e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m pur suant t o §1 983. W e have appe llate j ur isd ic tio n of

thi s in te rl oc uto ry

appe al . W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d

1 not err in deny ing th e office rs’ m otion to dism iss pu rsuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b)(6). W e conclude that the district court correctly determ ined that plain tiffs have a lle ge d e xc es siv e fo rc e that vi olate s c le ar ly e sta bli she d c onst itutio na l r igh ts of All en . The c om plaint filed on b ehalf of A llen, a m inor, alleged that the tw o officer s shot A lle n w ithata se r gun ca usi ng 5 0, 000 vol ts o f el ec tr ic ity to en te r the body

of A lle n, a6- y ear old , 53- poun d c hil d. A lle n c onvu lse d vi ole ntl y and v om ite d a s hi s body w as sho ck ed

w iththe 50, 000 vol ts. T he of fi ce rs handc uf

fe d A lle n a s he vom ite d. T he c om

pla int a lso a lle ge d th at

the ta se ri ng c au se d se ve re , sig nif ic an t an d pe rm an en t i nj ur

y to A lle n, inc lud ing e xtr em e m en ta l and p hy sic al suf fe ri ng3

an d l os s o f bo di ly fun ct io n, an d h as res ul te d i n l arg e d oc to rs an d h os pi ta l b il ls . The other c ircum stances surroundi ng the taser incident are alleged to be as follows. Allen w as rem oved from his classroom

to the assistant p rincipal’ s office for discipline after having been disrupti ve in class, and while locked in th e office he broke a picture fr am e in frustration. S chool officials then called the police. I n response to th e 911 call, O ffice rs Abbot t and Rivera ar rived at A llen’ s elem entary sc hool . T he y

f ound A lle n st an din g m oti onl es s and p as siv e in the c or ne r of the as sis tant p ri nc ipa l’ s of

fi ce . A lle n at the ti m e w as a6- y ear old c hil d, in the f

ir st gr ad e, standi ng 3 f

ee t 5 inc he s ta ll, and w ei ghi ng 5 3 po unds . H e ha d aone -h al f inch piece of glass (fr om

the broken picture fram e) in his left hand. T he district co urt m ad e not e of

the f oll ow ing a lle ga tio ns o f fa ct : tha t A lle n “ re m ai ne d to ta lly m oti onl es s and f

ri ght en ed w hil e be ing c onf

ro nte d by the pol ic e of

fi ce rs , ” that on e of fi ce r kne el ed

in fr ont of him and tha t the oth er

of fi ce r late r sa t i n ac ha ir

dir ec tly in f ro nt o f him , both inanon -d ef en siv e post

ur e, and f ina lly that j ust pr ior to the ta se ri ng, one of

fi ce r posi tio ne d he rs el f w ith in o ne f oot of the c hil d. O n th e ba sis of the f or eg oin g a lle ga tio ns o f spe ci fi c fa ct , the dis tr ic t c ourt pe rc ei ve d r ea sona ble inf er en ce s f ro m the c om pla int that A lle n ha d no t thr eate ne d to harm him se lf w ith the ve ry sm al l pi ec e of

gla ss i n hi s hand, nor

m ad e any

c onf ro ntatio na l ge sture s, nor reac ted in an aggressive m anner. D istrict Court Or der at 13-14. I n otherThe c omplaint also ex pressly draw s the same infe renc e: that Allen wa s “posingno 2 threat to hims elf or othe rs.” Sec ond Amended Complaint, ¶39.

Th e of fi c e rs did no t di sp ute the vio latio n o f A lle n’ s c on sti tut ion a l r ights , e ith e r i n 3 the dis tr ic t c ourt

or on a pp e a l. 4 w or ds, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s f ro m the com plaint were that: “ [F] rom the m om ent the police officers arrived on the scene, through the tim e the office rs deploy ed a taser into Allen’ s bodyand handcuffed hi m , All en po se d n o t hr eatto an y on e’s sa fet y , in cl ud in g h im se lf.” Id. at18 -1 9. 2 Inthi s in te rl oc uto ry

appe al , w e take a s agiv enthe f ac ts a ssum ed

by the dis tr ic t c ourt. I n th e Ru le 12( b) (6 ) post ur e of thi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y as sum ed a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of pla int if f fr om the a lle ga tio ns o f the co m pla int . O n th es e al le ge d f ac ts and i n th is R

ule 12( b) (6 ) post

ur e, w e ag re e w ith the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t pl ai nti ff s have a lle ge d e xc es siv e fo rc e that vi olate d th e constitu tional right s of Allen, and we agree with the district court that the officer s 3 ar e not e nti tle d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty be ca use the ir c ondu ct vio late d th e cl earl y established righ ts of Allen. E ven in the absence of fac tually sim ilar ca se law , an of fi ce r can have f

ai r w ar nin g th at his c ondu ct

is unc onst itutio na l whe n th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o ni s o b v i o u s , s o met i mes r e f e rr e dt o a s “ o b v i o u s c l ar i ty” ca se s. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. L an ie r, 520 U . S. 259 , 271 , 117 S . Ct . 121 9, 122 7 (1 997) ; V iny ar d v. W ils on, 311 F . 3d 1 340, 135 0- 51 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . W e co nc lud e that, a t the ti m e of

thi s in ci de nt i n Augus t of 200 3, e ve ry

r ea sona ble of fi ce r w oul d5

have kno w n th at

the ta se r fo rc e use d un de r the se c ir cum stanc es w as unl aw fu l. T he co nduc t at i ssu e he re li es so o bvi ousl y a t the ve ry

c or e of w ha t the F ourth A m en dm en t pr ohi bit s, that the unl aw fu lne ss o f the c ondu ct w as r ea dil y

appare nt t o anof fi ci al in the sho es of

the se of fi ce rs . G ray

e x r el . A le xande r v. Bo sti c, 458 F . 3d 1295 , 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2006 ); Slicker v. Jac kson , 215 F. 3d 12 25, 1227 (11t h Cir. 2000 ); Pr iester v. City

of Riviera Beac h, 208 F.3d 919, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2000 ). A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED.