FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 10 66 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 7- cv -0 04 19 -RV-M D KENNET H PATRICK QUINLAN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CITY OF PENSACOLA, JOHN MATHIS, Ch ie f of Po li ce, JOHN DOE, Pub li c Saf

ety Dire ct or , DANA LISCO, Pol ic e Offi cer, KEVIN CHRISTMAN, Po li ce Offi cer, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Ken ne th Patric k Qu in la n, a F lo rid a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s fo ll owi ng th e en try of fi na l ju dg m en t o n h is cla im s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d Fl or id a la w. Quin la n b ro ug htsu itag ai ns t the Cit y of P en sa co la(“ Ci ty”), Pen sa co laCh ie f of

Po li ce J oh n M athi s (“ Ch ie f Mat hi s” ), an d P ol ic e Offi cers Dana Lis co , Tom

Lyte r, Ja m es Gore , andKevi n C hr is tm an , all eg in g t ha t v io la ti on s o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o ccurreddu rin g a n e nc ou nt er wi thOffic er Ch ris tm an ’s K9 u ni t fo ll owi ng a tr affi c st op . On ap pe al , Qui nl anarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erre d b y (1) ex hi bi ti ng a pe rv as iv e b ia s ag ai ns t h im at t ria l, (2 ) refu si ng to all ow hi m to co nt es t the ex is te nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se to ex ecu te th e in it ia l traff ic st op , an d (3 ) gr an ti ng jud gm en t as a m at te r of law i n fa vo r of

th e Ci ty andCh ie f Mat hi s. I. W e li be ral ly con st ru e p ro se a rg um en ts on ap pe al . Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed St at es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). To d et erm in e if a di st ric t co urt ju dg e ga ve th e ap pe aran ce o f pa rti al ity or b ia s attri al , we rev ie w th e jud ge ’s con du ct du rin g t ria l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ver bi ts ka ya , 40 6 F .3d 13 24 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Howev er, i f no t ra is edan d p res erv edbe fo re the di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew a cl ai m of p erce iv edbi as or p art ia li ty for p la in erro r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 62 7 F .3d13 72 , 13 77 -8 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . “ Pl ai n e rro r

2oc cu rs wher e (1 ) th ere i s anerro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n o r ob vi ou s; (3) affe ct in g . . .

subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts inth atitwas p reju di ci al an d n otha rm le ss ; an d (4 ) th atser io us ly affe ct s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra ad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Qui nl anarg ue s the di st ric t co urt ju dg e ex hi bi te d abi as ag ai ns t h im by (1) co m m un ic at in g e x p art e wit h d efen se co un se l ab ou t Qu in lan’s m ot io n fo r th e is su an ce o f a s ub po en a d ecu es tec um , (2) de nyin g h is reque stfor anord er 1 di rect in g C hi ef Ma th is to be pre se ntat t ria l, (3 ) refu si ng to gi ve Qui nl anex trati m e to rev ie w cert ai n d oc um en ts pri orto tri al , (4) tel li ng th e jury no t t o t ak e n ot es be cau se of the rel at iv e si m pl ic ity of t he cas e, (5 ) in st ru ct in g t he jury ab ou t a di sp ut edfor ce re po rt, (6 ) te ll in g t he jury th atpro babl e cau se was n otat i ss ue du rin g t he tri al , (7) di sc lo si ng Qui nl an ’s cri m in al co nv ic ti on whi le ex pl ai ni ng why pr ob ab le cau se was n otat i ss ue , (8) in te rrupt in g Qu in la n dur in g wi tn es s ex am in at io n a ndtel li ng hi m to sp eedup , (9) rai si ng th e is su e o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es an d a sk in g d efen se co un se l wh ethe r th e d efen da nt s h adm ov edfordi rect edve rd ic t on th e cl ai m

forpu ni ti ve da m ag es , and(10 ) gr an ti ng jud gm en t as a m at te r of law

Acc ordingto Quinlan, the district court judg e re marke d that defe nse counse l had 1 informed him ex parte that the de fenda nts would not oppose Quinlan’s subpoena duces te cum reque st. 3in fav orof t he de fen dant s.

“ [R]ul in gs adve rs e to a pa rty” do no t co ns ti tu te pe rv as iv e b ia s. Hamm v. Memb er s o f Bd. of Rege nt s o f Sta te of Fla . , 70 8 F .2d64 7, 6 51 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Mor eo ve r, “ [w]hil e a tria l ju dg e . . . has a du ty to co nduc t the tri al care fu ll y , pat ie nt ly, an d i m pa rti al ly, th e jud ge ha s wi de di sc ret io n i n m an ag in g t he pro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha wki ns , 66 1 F .2d43 6, 4 50 (11 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . To co ns ti tu te rev ers ib le erro r, “ a jud ge ’s rem ark s m

us t d em on strat e su chpe rv as iv e b ia s an d unf ai rn es s t ha t the y pr ejud ic e o ne of t he pa rti es .” Verb it sk ay a , 40 6 F .3dat 1 33 7 (c it at io ns om it te d) . All of t he all eg edm an ife st at io ns of p erv as iv e b ia s ei th er (1 ) am ou ntto adve rs e ru li ng s, (2 ) fal l wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s “ wid e d is cret io n i n m an ag in g t he pr oc eed in gs ,” or(3) are o th erwi se in su ffi ci en t t o d em on st rat e “ su chpe rv as iv e b ia s an d u nf ai rn es s t ha t the y

pre jud ic e[d ]” Quin la n. Acco rd in gl y , Qui nl anha s n ot sh own th atth e d is tri ctco urt ex hi bi te d ape rv as iv e b ia s ag ai ns t h im . II. Qui nl anne xtarg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredinrefu si ng to all ow h im to co nt es t the po li ce o ffi cers ’ as se rti on s t ha t the y ha d p ro babl e cau se to ex ecu te th e in it ia l traff

ic st op . Fol lo win g t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Heck v . Hump hr ey , 51 2 U.S. 4 77 (19 94 ), th is Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t a p ris on er ca nn otbri ng a ci vi l 4rig ht s cl ai m

forda m ag es un de r § 1 98 3 “ if t he ad jud ic at io n o f th e ci vi l ac ti on inth e pl ai nt iff’s fav orwou ldne ces sa ril y im pl y th athi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e was in va li d u nl es s t he pl ai nt iff cande m on st rat e th atth e co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e h as al read y be enin va li da te d.” Mor ro w v. Fed. Bur ea u o f Pr is on s , 61 0 F .3d12 71 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Qui nl anarg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredinap pl y in g Heck to hi s § 19 83 cla im s be cau se he ne ve r ha d t he “ op po rtu ni ty to l it ig at e is su es of p ro babl e cau se to st op hi s v eh ic le forfel on y

fle ei ng an d a tt em

pt in g t o e lu de , sp eed in g, n orfel on y ba tt ery on LEO K -9 /h or se .” Qui nl anco nc ed es , ho wev er, tha t h e p le d no lo co nt en de re to res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th ou t v io le nc e, whi chrequi res a fi nd in g t ha t the off ic er act ed“ in th e la wfu l ex ecu ti onof a ny leg al du ty.” Fla. St at . § 8 43 .02 . Becau se a pl ea o f no lo co nt en de re co ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n u nd er Fl or id a la w, Fla. St at . § 9 60 .29 1( 3) , a fin di ng th atth e o ffi cers di d n otha ve pro babl e cau se wou ldim pl y th e in va li di ty of Qui nl an ’s con vi ct io n fo r res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th ou t v io le nc e. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err. III. Altho ug h Qu in la n d oe s n otex pl ic it ly ide nt ify any ad di ti on al is su es , hi s br ie f, co ns tru edli be ral ly, rai se s t wo ad di ti on al arg um en ts . Firs t, Qu in la n a rg ue s th e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng jud gm en t as a m atte r of law i n fa vo r th e Ci ty 5an d C hi ef Ma th is on hi s cl ai m th atth ey fai le d t o t rai n o r supe rv is e th e p ol ic e of fic ers in vo lv edinth e in ci de nt . A m un ic ip al it y

is “ li ab le un de r § 1 98 3 wh enit s 2 em pl oyees c au se a co ns ti tu ti on al in jury as a res ul t o f th e m

un ic ip al it y ’s po li cy

– o r cu st om -b as edfai lu re t o a de qu at el y supe rv is e it s emplo y ees .” Am. Fed’n of La bo r an d C on gr es s o f In du s. Or

gs . v. Cit y o f Mi ami , 63 7 F .3d11 78 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . But“ th e in ad equa cy of p ol ic e tr ai ni ng m ay

serve as t he ba si s fo r § 1 98 3 l iabi li ty onl y wher e th e fai lu re t o t rai n am ou nt s t o d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t he rig ht s o f pe rs on s wi th who m th e p ol ic e co m e in to co nt act .” 3 Id. (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gra nt in g ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law b ecau se Qui nl anfai le d t o s ho w (1) th e requi si te cau sa l l in k b etween an y po li cy or c us to m -b as edfai lu re an d h is all eg edin juri es , and(2) any

“ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce” t o h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Seco nd , Qui nl anarg ue s t he di st ric t co urt erredby allo win g t he de fen da nt s to subm ita frau du le ntus e o f fo rce r ep ort t o the jury. He fai ls to pro vi de an y supp ort, h owe ve r, fo r th e cl ai m th atth e rep ort was actua ll y frau du le nt . In isolated ref

ere nces distributed throughout his ini tial brief, Quinlan a lso notes his 2 disagree ment with virtually ever y other judgment as a matter of law issued by the district court. Although Q uinlan is a pro se litig ant, his challeng es to these judgments are deeme d waived beca use he provided only

passingref

ere nces to them in his initial brief. See Timson v. Sam pson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008). The same “deliberate indiffe renc e” sta ndard a pplies where a police c hief is alleg ed to 3 have f ailed to train or supe rvise subordinate s. Bruce v . Beary , 498 F.3d 1232, 1248- 49 (11th Cir. 2007). 6Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err.

AFFIRMED.

7