FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT FEB 13, 2007 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. 06- 13970 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5
- 0 0 0 9 4
- CV
- O C- 1 0
- G RJ J E F F R E Y A . B R Y A N , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s B R A N D O N S P I L L M A N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 13, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A p p ellan t Jef

fr ey B ry an , p ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict c o u r t’ s
or de rgr a nt i ng s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vorof O f

f i c e rB r a ndon S pi l l m a n of t he M a r i on C o u n ty Sh e r i f f’ s D e p a r t me n t . Br y a n f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n u n d e r4 2 U
. S. C.We a ff ir m w ith out di sc us sio n th e e ntr y of summa ry judgme nt o n B ryan’ s § 19 83 c la ims 1 a g a ins t O ff

ic e r S pil lma

n, a statea c tor , b a se d o n the F if th Amendme nt. Mo re ov e r, wefi nd no me ri t to Bryan ’ s c laim

th at O f f ic e r Sp il lm anil le g a lly

e nter e d o nto h is p r o p e rty . It w a s un d is p ute d that before his enc ounter with B ryan, i n fr ont of a mobile home e manatingthe smell of marijuana , Of fi c e r S pil lma

n w a s r e sp on din gto a repo rt of an a ba nd on e d ve hic le on theprop e rt y . T heF ourt

h Am e ndme nt “ is n ot imp lic ate d by e ntr y up on private land

to k no c k o n a c iti zen ’s do or

fo r l e g iti mate police purpose s unconnec ted with a search of the premises.” United S tates v. Tay lor, 458 F.3d 1201, 1 2 0 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e d is tric t c o urt d id n o t e r r b y c o n c lu d in g th at b e c a u s e th e r e w a s no constitutional violation, Offic er Spill man was entitled to summar y judgme nt on the i l l ega l -entry c la im. We GRANT B ryan’s Motion to File Reply Brief Out of T ime. 2 2 § 1 98 3, al l egi ng t hatO ff i ce r S pi l lm an co nd uct ed an i l l egal ar re stand u se d
e xc e s s i ve f

or c e i n the c our s e of

the a rrest , i n vi ol a t i on of hi s F our th A m e ndm e nt
r i ght s . O n a ppe a l , B r y a n a r gue s t ha tt he di s tr i c tc our te r red by c onc l udi ng tha the

1 fa i l ed t o al l ege a const i tut i on al vi ol at i on , and, altern at i vel y, thatO ff i ce r S pi l l m an
w as en t i t l ed t o t he defense of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty f rom the cl ai m s. M ore spec i fi ca l l y, B ry an cont ends t hatthe di strict courter re d b y a cc ept i ng O ff i ce r S pi l l m an’ s, ra th er than B ry an’ s, vers i on of t he un derl yi ng fa ct s. B ry an al so urges th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y r e je c tin g th e e v id e n c e h e s u b m itte d in o p p o s i t i o n to
s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, in f a v o r o f O f

f ic e r S p illm a n ’s p o lic e r e p o r t a n d a f f id a v it,
w hi ch w er e s ub m i t t ed i n sup po rtof sum m ar y j ud gm enti n t he i nst antm att er . A ft er
c a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 2 T h e p a r tie s a r e f

a m ilia r w i t h t h e b a c k g r o u n d f a c ts , w h ic h w e r e th o r o u g h ly de s c r i be d by t he m a gi s tr a t e j udge i n the R e por ta nd R e c om m e n d at i o n , an d w e doThe district cour t adopted the R& R over B ryan’s objec tions, which the district court 3 described as “ highly inappropriate and unnece ssar[ily] i nflammatory” and “ mere ly a 17-pag e attac k on the Mag istrate Judge, peppere d with a fe w ra ndom statements demonstratingthe Plaintiff’s total lack of understandingof the lawand fa cts of his ca se.” Whil e pro secomplaints areentitled to a liberal interpretation, “a pro selitigant does not 4 e sc a pethee ssenti a l bu

rd e n und e r s umm ary

judgme nt s tand ard s o f e sta bli sh ingthat th e reis a g enuine issue a s to a fac t material to his casein order to avert summary judgme nt.” B rown v. Crawf ord, 906 F .2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). 3 no tre coun tthem ag ai n h er e. W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ar y 3 j ud gme nt de no vo . Se e St e e l e v. Sha h, 87 F. 3d 12 66 , 12 69 ( 11 th Ci r . 19 96 )
. In
m a ki ng thi s de t e r m i na t i on, w e vi e w the r e c or d be f or e the di s tr i c tc our ti n the l i ght
m ostfa vo ra bl e t o t he no n-m ov i ng party t o d et er m i ne i f a genu i ne issu e of m at er i al fa ctexi st ed. S ee i d. T he m ov i ng party bea rs t he i ni t i al b u rd en of es t abl i shi ng that th e r e a r e n o g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f ma t e r i a l f

a c t . Se e Ce l o t e x Co rp . v . Ca tr e t t , 4 7 7 U
. S. 317, 323 ( 1986)
. I f

t he m ovi ng pa r ty i s s uc c e s sfu l , the bur de n s hi f t s t o the nonm ov i ng party t o com e f orw ar d w i th evi dence beyond the pl ea di ng s that d e m o n s tr a te s th e p r e s e n c e o f a g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t. I d . a t 3 2 4 . T h is evi dence m ay consi stof af fi davits o r o therre l evantand adm i ss i bl e e vi dence. S ee A vi r ga n v. H ul l , 932 F
. 2d 1572, 1577 (1 1 th C i r . 1991)
. “ A m e r e s c i nt i l l a of
e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng t he oppos i ng pa r ty ’ s pos i t i on w i l l nots uf f i c e ; the r e m us tbe
e nough of

a s how i ng tha tthe j ur y c oul d r e a so n ab l y fi n d f ort ha tpa r ty . ” W a l ke rv. D arby, 91 1 F
. 2d 15 73 , 15 77 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ) ( qu ot at i on om i t t ed). 44

I ti s w e l l
- s e t t l e d t ha t42 U
. S
. C
. § 1983, by i t s e l f , doe s notc r e a t e s ubs t a nt i ve ri gh t s, bu tra ther i tprov i des “ a m etho d fo r vi nd i ca t i ng fe dera l ri gh t s e l se w here
c o n f e r r e d .” G rah am v . C o n n o r, 4 9 0 U
. S
. 3 8 6 , 3 9 3 -9 4 (1 9 8 9 ). T o st at e a cl a im
un der § 19 83 , a pl ai nt i ff m ustes tab li sh tw o ess ent i al el em ent s: (1) the cond uct
c om pl a i ne d of

w a s c om m i t t e d by a pe r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof st at e l a w ; a nd ( 2) the c onduc tde pr i ve d a pe r s on of r i ght s , pr i vi l e ge s , ori m m uni t i e s s e c ur e d by t he C o n s titu tio n o rla w s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . S e e B l a n t o n v . G r ie l M e m ’l P s y c h ia tr ic H o sp . , 7 5 8 F
. 2 d 1 5 4 0 , 1 5 4 2 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 5 ); see al so A m eri can M frs. M u t . In s. C o. v. S ul l i van, 11 9 S
. C t . 97 7, 98 5 (19 99 ) ( ho l di ng th at to state acl ai m for r el i ef ba s e d on § 1983, “ [ pl a i nt i f f s ] m us te s t a bl i sh t h at t he y w e r e de pr i ve d of a r i ght
se cure d b y t h e C o n stitut i on or l aw s of the U ni t ed S t at es , and t hatthe al l eged de pr i va t i on w a s c om m i t t e d unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . ” )
. T hus , i f B r y a n di d not
c r e a te a q u e s tio n o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rh is f e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts
w er e vi ol at ed, th e d istri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ar y j ud gm entt o O ff i ce r S pi l l m an
o n th e § 1 9 8 3 c la im s w a s p r o p e r . S e e S c h w ie rv . C o x , 3 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. In t he i nst antca se , t he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed t hat B ry an fa i l ed t o ass er t vi ol a t i ons of

hi s c o ns t i tut i ona l r i ght s unde rthe F our th A m e ndm e ntbe c a us e : ( 1) up on sm el l i ng m ar i

j uana as he approached B ry an’ s m ob i l e hom e, O ff i ce r S pi l l m anThe district cour t also found that B ryan’s f alse-a rre st claim failed be causehe had pre- 5 sented no proof

of damag es or injuries a

nd duringhis deposition had stated that he did not bleed, have a ny bruises or marks, and did not see k medical tre atment af ter the encounter . Since we a ffirm thedis tric t c ourt ’s fi ndinga s to thee xiste nc e of re a so nable su sp ic ion , w e do no t r e a c h th is a lte rn ativ e ba sis fo r s umm ary judgme nt i n f

avo r o f O ff

ic e r S pil lma

n o n th e false -a

rre st c la im. In the alter

native, the district cour

t noted that Spill man had a sserted thedefense of 6 qualified immunity . Be causeOfficerSpill man was a ctingwithin the scope of his discretionary authority , it was Br

yan’s burden to establish qualified immunity did not apply
. Durruthy

v. Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080, 1 0 8 7 (11th Cir. 2003). The district c ourt conc luded that bec ause B ryan had not established a violation of his constitutional rights, and thus Offic er S pillman had not acted un l aw f u l l y f o r p ur p o s e s o f th e f

i r s t e l e m e nt o f th e w e l l
- e s t a b l i s h e d t e s t f

o r qu a l i f i e d immun ity delineate d by

the Supreme Court in Saucie r v. Ka t z , 5 33 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), Of fice r Spillm an would be entitled to qualified immunity on the claims. 5 ha d a r t i c ul a bl e a nd r e a s ona bl e s us p i ci o n t o de t a i n a nd que s t i on B r y a n a bout
m ar i j uana use ath is h ou se and t o con du cta pat -dow n, and such d et ent i on never
r ip e n e d in to a n a r r e s t f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

a f a ls e - a r r e s t c la im ; a n d ( 2 ) th e f o r c e u s e d in 5 th e c o u r s e o f

t h e p a t - d o wn , wh i c h Of f i c e rS p i l l m a n p e r f

o r m e d t o a s s u r e h i s o wn
sa fe ty, w as re as on abl e a nd , in an y e vent , de m i ni m us i n n ature a nd t here fore i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s t a t e a n e x c e s s i v e - f o r c e c l a i m. 6 T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t is im p lic a te d w h e n a p o lic e o f f ic e re ith e rb r ie f

ly d e ta i n s a c itiz e n f

o rin v e s tig a to r y p u rp o s e s o rh o ld s a c itiz e n p u r s u a n t to a n a r r e s t. U ni t ed S t at es v. H as t am ori r, 88 1 F
. 2d 15 51 , 15 56 (11 th C ir. 1 98 9). T o j ust i fy an in v est i g at o ry d et en t i o n , t h e p o l i ce o ffi cer m u sth av e “ reaso n ab l e an d art i cu la b le
s u s p ic io n th a t th e in d i v i d u a l h a s c o m m itte d o ris a b o u t to c o m m it a c r im e .” I d .;
s ee T e r r y v. O hi o, 392 U
. S
. 1, 21. U nde rT e r r y , a na r r ow l y dr a w n s e a r c h f or6

w e a pons w i thouta w a r r a nti s al so pe r m i t t e d w he r e the of f i c e rha s r e a s on be l i e ve th a t th e in d iv id u a l to b e s e a r c h e d is a r m e d a n d d a n g e r o u s . I d . a t 2 7
. H ere, t h e d i stri ctco u r t e n t ered su m m ary j u d g m en to n B ryan ’ s fal se-arrest
c la im b e c a u s e O f

f ic e rS p illm a n h a d r e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n to d e t a i n B r y a n b r ie f ly and t o con du cta T er ry pat -dow n. It w as un di sput ed t hatO ff i ce r S pi l l m an sm el l ed
m ar i j uana em anat i ng fr om th e h o use w here he encoun t er ed B ry an. C f. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 592 F
. 2d 259 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( s m e l l of m a r i j ua na e m a na t i ng f

r om
ve hi c l e e s t a bl i s he d r e a s onab l e su spi c i on f ors e a r c h of

the t runk)
. M or e ove r , the ho m e w as l ocat ed i n a hi gh -c ri m e a re a a nd du ri ng O ff i ce r S pi l l m an’s encoun t er
w i th B ry an i n a di m l y- l i tpl ac e, B ry an ac t ed i n a t hrea t eni ng m anner. T he di stri ct
co u rt fo u n d th a t g iv en it s s h o rt d u ra ti o n (n o m o re th an fiv e m in u tes) , B ry an ’s de t e nt i on ne ve rr i pe ne d i nt o a n a r r e s t . T hus , t h e co ur tf ound tha tB r y a n ha d not
s how n a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o a n e l e m e ntof

hi s § 1983 c l a i m - - t he
e x is te n c e o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . T he di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n an i nve s t i ga t or y s t op of l i m i t e d dur a t i on a nd a de t e nt i on t ha ta m o unt s t o a n a r r e s t“ i s one of e xt e nt , w i th the l i ne of de m a r c a t i on
re sul t i ng fr om t he w ei gh i ng of a l i m i t ed vi ol at i on of i nd i vi du al pri vacy i nv ol ved agai nstthe op po si ng i nt er es t s i n cri m e pre v ent i on and d et ec t i on and i n t he po l i ce offi ce r’ s s af

ety. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. A cost a, 36 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 14 5-46 (11t h C i r.The a dditional fact that B ryan wa s handcuf fed did not transf

orm the dete ntion into an 7 arrest. See United States v. Ac osta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1147 ( 11th Cir.2004) 7 2004) ( quot a t i on om i t t e d)
. I n m a ki ng thi s de t e r m i na t i on, t hi s C our tl ooks t o: “[ 1 ] th e la w e n f

o r c e m e n t p u rp o s e s s e r v e d b y th e d e te n tio n , [ 2 ] th e d ilig e n c e w ith
w hi c h the pol i c e pur s ue the i nve s t i ga t i on, [ 3] t he s c ope a nd i nt ru si v e ne s s of the det ent i on , and [4] t he du ra t i on of t he det ent i on . ” I d. at11 46 (quo t at i on om i t t ed). H er e, the “ t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s” show s thatt he bri ef det ent i on w as
r e a s ona bl e , a n d d i d n o t e v o l v e i n t o a n a r r e s t f o r w h i c h p r o b a b l e c a u s e mu s tbe show n. V i ew i ng t he fa ct s of thi s c as e i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo ra b le to B ry an , O ff i ce r S pi l l m an had an i nv es t i gat ory p u rp o se for app roac hi ng B ry an’ s hou se -- he w as i nve s t i ga t i n g a rep o rtof a n a ba ndone d ve hi c l e a tthe hous e - - a nd, a f t e rs m e l l i ng
m a r i j ua na , S pi l l m a n ha d r e a s ona bl e , a r t i c ul a bl e s us pi c i on t o de t a i n B r y a n. S p illm a n a ls o d id n o t v io la te B r y a n ’s r ig h ts b y c o n d u c tin g a w e a p o n s s e a r c h b o th beca use S pi l l m an cl ai m s thatB ry an consent ed t o t he se ar ch an d b ec ause such
se ar ch es ar e p er m issib le w h er e th er e is r ea so n to b e c o n ce rn ed fo r th e o ff icer ’s
s a f e ty . S ee T erry, 3 9 2 U
. S
. at 2 7
. S p i l l m an h ad reaso n t o b e co n cern ed f o r h is
s a f e ty be c a us e he s m e l l e d m a r i j ua na s m oke , B r y a n be ha ve d ag g r e s s i ve l y t ow a r ds hi m , the r e w a s poorl i ght i ng, a nd B r y a n w a s w e a r i ng ba ggy c l othe s t h a tc oul d ha ve
c o n c e a le d a w e a p o n . O n th is r e c o r d , th e r e w a s n o v i o l a t i o n o f th e F o u r th 7 A m e n d m e n t b e c a u s e B r y a n w a s n o t a r r e s te d a n d th e r e w a s r e a s o n a b le , a r tic u la b le8

s us pi c i on t o d et ai n hi m . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rby e nt e r i ng
s u mma r y j u d g me n to n t h e f a l s e - a r r e s tc l a i m. W e l i kew i se ar e unp ersuaded by B ry an’ s s ug gest i on thatthe di stri ctcourt
e r r e d b y e nt e r i ng s um m a r y j udgm e nton hi s F our th A m e ndm e ntc l a i m f or
e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e , f o rw h ic h , a t th e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t s ta g e , h e w a s r e q u ir e d to al l e ge tha t ( 1) a s e i z ur e oc c ur r e d a nd ( 2) the f or c e us e d t o e f

f e c t the s e i z ure w as
un re as on abl e. T roup e v. S ar as ota C o u n ty, F l a. , 41 9 F
. 3d 11 60 , 11 66 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 19 14 (200 6). T he S up re m e C ou rthas s t at ed t hat

“ the r i ghtt o m a ke a n arrest ori nve s t i ga t or y s t op ne c e s s a r i l y c a r r i e s w i th i tthe r i ght t o u s e s o m e d e g r e e o f

p h y s i c a l c o e r c i o n o rth r e a tth e r e o f t o e f f e c ti t . ” Gr a h a m, 4 9 0 U
. S
. at 396. M or e ove r , i n r e vi e w i ng s uc h a c l a i m , w e e va l ua t e t he
re as on abl enes s of the force used un der a n o bj ec t i ve st andard and ask w het her a n offi ce r’ s a ctio ns w er e r ea sonabl e “ i n l i gh tof t he fa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance s
c onf r o n t i n g [ the pol i c e of f i c e r ] , w i thoutr e ga r d t o hi s unde r l y i ng i nt e ntor
m ot i vat i on . ” K es i ng erv. H er ri ng t on , 38 1 F
. 3d 12 43 , 12 48 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ); se e
a ls o L e e v . F e r r a r o , 2 8 4 F
. 3 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 7
- 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “in de t e r m i ni ng i f

f or c e w a s r e a s ona bl e , c our t s m us te xa m i ne ( 1) the ne e d f ort he appl i ca t i on of forc e, (2 ) the r el at i on shi p b etw ee n t he need and am ou ntof forc e
u s e d , a n d ( 3 ) t h e e x t e n t o f th e in ju r y in f lic te d ” ) . “[ T ]h e a p p lic a tio n o f d e m in im isThe plaintiff in Nolin pointed to nea rly identical circumstance s as constituting e x cessive 8 forc e. We disagree d:

As des cri bed

a bo ve , App e lla

nt, purs ua nt t o what th e dis tric t c ourt fo un d to bea lawf ul a rre st, me re ly

gra bb e d App e lle e and

sh ov e d him a few f

e e t a g a ins t a ve hic le , p us he d App e lla

nt' s k ne e int o App e lle e ’s ba c k an d App e lle e ’s he a d ag a ins t the van, se arc hed Appe llee’s groin are a in an un co m fo rt able manner, and pla ced Appelle e i n handcuf

fs. Appelleehad minor bruisingwhich quickly disappea red without treatment. This f actual recitation by Appellee falls well within the ambit of thedemin imi s f

orc e princ ipl e of

Pos t, G old , a

nd Jone s. In fa c t, the fa c ts s ound little dif ferent f ro m th e min imal amou

nt o f f orc e a nd inj ur y inv olv e d in

a ty pic a l arre st. 207 F.3d at 1258 n.4. 9 f or c e , w i thoutm or e , w i l l nots uppor ta c l a i m f ore xc e s s i ve f

or c e i n vi ol a t i on of

the F o u r th A m e n d m e n t.” N o lin v . I s b e ll, 2 0 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )
. T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe e nc ount er i nvol ve d onl y de m i ni m us f or c e a nd t hus, acco rd i n g t o ourde c i s i on i n N ol i n, w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt , a s a m a t t e rof l aw , t o st at e a const i tut i on al vi ol at i on . A cc ordi ng t o t he un cont es t ed evi dence, dur i ng hi s e nc ount e rw i th O f f i c erS pi l l m a n, B r y a n w a s a c t i ng a ggr e s s i ve l y a nd
s uf f e r e d onl y s om e t e m por a r y pa i n , w hi c h r e qui r e d no tr e a t m e nt , a nd no l a s t i ng in ju r y . B r y a n s a y s th a t O f f ic e rS p i l l m a n c o n d u c te d a “r o u g h s e a r c h ” o f h is geni t al s, pu shed hi m agai nsta patrol ca r a nd hel d h is h ea d d o w n agai nstthe ca r. S i m pl y put , t hi s c onduc tde s c r i be d f a l l s w e l l w i th i n t h e a m bi tof ourde
m i ni m us f

or c e c a s e l a w . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c t c our t di d not e r r b y ent e r i ng

8
sum m ar y j ud gm entas there w as no genu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa cton the exi st ence10

of a c ons t i tut i onal v i o l at i on - - a n e l e m e ntof B r y a n’ s § 1983 c l a i m ba s e d on
exce ss i ve force
. AF F I RME D.