F I L ED U. S
. C OUR T OF AP PE ALS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AP R 10 , 2006 THOM A S K. KA HN CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 05- 1586 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00258 -CV -J-25MCR LARAE BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JARE D W IT KO W SK I, DAVID CHAPPELL, D ep uty S he ri ff s, ind ivi dua lly

a nd i n th ei r o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 10, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Ms. Bryant filed a motion to dismiss this appea l for lack of appellate jurisdiction. We deny 1 this mot ion, as we ha

ve jurisdiction at this stage in the proce eding s t o re v i ew the district court’s denial of the office rs’ qua lified immunit y defe nse. Se e J

ac k so n v. Sa uls , 2 06 F .3 d 1 15 6, 11 64 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) ; Smith v. Mattox , 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 ( 11th Cir. 1997). Ms. Bryant also asse rted state- law cla ims ag ainst the officers, and the di strict court de nied 2 the of fi c e rs ’ m oti on s, ba se d o n s tate -l aw o ff ic ia l immun ity , f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n th os e c la ims
. Th e of fi c e rs do no t a

pp e a l th e se de nia ls, and

we e xpre ss n o o pin ion

on the m. 2 J ar ed Wit co ws k i an dDa v i dCh ap p el l (t h e “ o ff i ce rs ”) ap p ea l t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de nia l of sum

m ar y j udgm en t to the m in L ar ae Br y an t’ s 28 U
. S. C. § 1983 sui t a ga ins t the m i n t h e i r i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t i e s f

o r i n j u r i e s s h e s u s t a i n e ddu r i n g t h e b ooki ng pr oc es s a ft er

he r ar re st f or dis or de rl y

int oxi catio n. Ms . B ry an t a lle ge s th at the 1 of fi ce rs use d e xc es siv e fo rc e, in vio la tio n of he r Fo urth and F ourte en th A m en dm en t ri ght s, in “ ta kin g he r dow n” w hil e she w as in cu sto dy
. T he of fi ce rs c ont en d th at

the 2 force that they em

ploy ed wa s reasonable in light of Ms. B ry ant’ s phy sical resistance t o t he i r e f

f or t s t o se a r c h a nd f

i ng e r pr i nt he r . T he y c on t e nd t hat M s. Bry ant was
a t t e mp t i n g t o k i c kt h e o f

f i c e r s a n ds u c c e e d e di n k i c k i n g o n e o f t h e m. The district court exam ined the officers’ use of force under the fram ew ork out lin ed in Graham v. Conner , 490 U .S
. 386, 397, 109 S. Ct. 1865 , 1872-73 (1989 ),
w hic h ho lds that the F ourth A m en dm en t i s vi ola te d w he n an of fi ce r’ s us e of

f or ce is

“ obj ec tiv el y

unr ea sona

ble ” in l igh t of the tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es sur

ro undi ng
suc h us e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that a f ac tua l i ssu e ex ist ed w he the r Ms. Br y an t
w as ac t i v e l y

a n dp h y s i c a l l y

r e s i s t i n g t h e o f

f i c e r s ’ a t t e m

p t s t o s e a r c h h e r

a nd3

fi nge rp ri nt h er

a ft er he r ar re st, a nd thus w he the r the of fi ce rs act ed

r ea sona bly in

“ tak i n g h er down. ” W e agre e that this dis puted factual issue precludes summ ary ju d g men tf

o r t h e o f f i c e r s o n l i ab i l i t y. The district court also held that the officer s wer e n o t entitled to q ualified im m unity“ at this tim e” f

or their actions. S tate actors s u ed i n t h eir individu al capacities for actions taken as part of their offic ial duties are entit l ed to qualified imm un it y if th ei r co nd uc t d oe s n ot vi ol at e cl earl y est ab li sh edrig ht s. Sm ith v . M attox , 127 F. 3d 1 416, 1419 (1 1th Ci r. 1997 ). T he of fi ce rs he re a re e nti tle d to thi s im m uni ty unl es s th e lawa s it stood on the day of Ms
. Br y an t’ s arre st w oul d c om

pe l, not m er el y sugg es t, the c onc lus ionthat the of fi ce rs ’ co nduc t in t ak ing he r dow n w oul d vi ola te th e p la in ti ff’s ri gh ts . H

udso n v . H

all , 23 1 F .3d12 89 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). To determ ine whether an officer is e ntitled to qualified im m unity , t h e cou rt
m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er t he off ic er h as vi ol at edth e p la in ti ff’s ri gh ts . Se e id. If the of fi ce r ha s no t vi ola te d th e lawa t a ll, he c oul d no t poss ibl y ha ve vio la te d c le ar ly
es tabl is he d l aw. Id

. The district court determ ined that genu ine issues of m aterial f act
ex ist ed a s to w he the r the of

fi ce rs vio la te d Ms. Br

y an t’ s rig hts unde r the F ourth and Fourteenth Am endm ents, and the court concluded that the officer s wer e not entitled t o qu al i fi ed i m

m u n i t y at t h e su m

m ary ju d g m en t s t ag e. We aff i rm t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s deni al of sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe qua lif

ie d im m uni ty iss ue , but

w e not e that the4

court m ay

revis i t the issue of qualified imm unityif the j ury

finds (for exam

ple, thr oughspe ci al int er

ro ga tor ie s) tha t M s. Br

y an t w as a ct ive ly

a nd p hy sic al ly

r es ist ing
arre st an d trying to ki ck th e of fic ers du rin g t he bo ok in g p ro ces s. Se e Sm ith , 127 F
. 3d at 142 0. AFFIR MED.