F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT October 12, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1477 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 10 3- CV-1 -MM P-AK DE LO RIS BURKE TT , I ndiv iduallyand as Personal Repre sentative of the Estate of Mark Burk ett, D ec ea se d, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ALACHUA COUNTY , COREY WARREN, LEE HU DSON, JAM ES ELLIOTT , DAVID REED, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the N orthern District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(O ct ob er 12, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:A c c o r d i n g t o P l a i n t i f f ’ s c o mp l a i n t , B ur

k e t t “ h a d e x h i b i t e d unu s u a l b e h av i o r

th r o u g h o u tth e d ay, 1 including detac hment, irrationality and other behavior s consistent with me ntal an demot ional instabilit ies.” 2 Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant D el or is B urke tt (“ Pl ai nti ff ”) , appe ar ing ind ivi dua lly a nd as repre sentative of the estate of her deceased son, Mark Burkett (“ Burkett”), ap pe al s th e gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o A la chuaCo unty , F lor ida , the S he ri ff of Alac hua County(the “ Sheriff ”), and Alac hua CountyJail corre ctional officers
su edin th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ty (the “ Co rrec ti on al Offic ers ”) o n h er 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m. N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. W e re vie wde nov o th e gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t. I nf

o. S y s. & N etw orks Corp. v. City

of A tlanta, 281 F. 3d 12 20, 1224 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). Sum m ary j udgm en t i s pr ope r w he n th e ev ide nc e show s “ that the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to
an y m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 56( c)
. W e vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the
no n- m ov in g p art y . Beckv. Pru pi s, 1 62 F.3d 10 90 , 10 96 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). In the ear ly

m orning h ours of 13 Ju ne 2001 , G ainesville Police Of ficer s responded to a ca ll from

Plaintiff that her 18 y ear- old so n was a cting very str an ge ly
. P la int if

f re que ste d th at

of fi ce rs take Burk ett f

or apsy ch ia tr ic 1
ev al ua tio n. A lth oughBurk ett, w ho w as 6’ 2’ ’ a nd w ei ghe d a ppr oxi m at el y

245 poun ds, initially

did no t resist officer s’ attem pt to pl ace him

into th e police car ,Be cause Bur kett had eng ag ed in a phy sical strug g le with the offic ers who pic ked him up from 2 Pla int if f’ s h ome , in c lud ingbit ingon e of the m, t he jud g e or de re d th at B ur ke tt r e c e ive an H I V t e st. 3 Burkett becam e agitated as he approached the police car. A s Burkett’ s father w as helping Burkett to the car, Burkett grabbed his father’ s shirt, cocked his head ba ck , a nd “ he ad -b utt ed ” his f athe r. O ff

ic er s stru ggl ed

to pla ce Burk ett onthe ground ; and Burkett bit the hand of one of the office rs. Burkett also kicked at oth er of fi ce rs . O ff

ic er s th entoo k B urke tt to the A la chuaCo unty Ja il. Burk ett w as pla ce d in to a hol din g c el l aro und 4 a
. m . ; and h e bange d onhis cell door and shou ted obscenities u ntil around 8 a. m ., when off icers enter ed Burkett’ s cell to take him to his first appearance bef ore a j udge. O ffice rs ordered Burk ett t o li e dow n onthe f loo r so tha t of

fi ce rs c oul d handc uf

f him ; bu t B urke tt
w as unr es pons ive to thi s c om m an d. A n of

fi ce r the n sh ot B urke tt w ithata se r gun
a n dh a n d c u f

f e dh i m. A th i s f

i r s tap p e a r a n c e , B u rk e t tc o n t i n u e dt o a c ts t r a n g e l y;
an d t he pre si di ng jud ge ord ered th atBu rk et t re cei ve a m en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on . T he j udge a lso or de re d th at ablo od s am

ple be take n f

ro m Burk ett. 2 A t a ppr oxi m at el y

12: 00 p
. m . , Burk ett r ec ei ve d asho t t o se da te him
. A t 3: 00 p. m . , of fi ce rs a nd a

nur se e nte re d B urke tt’ s c el l t o dr awblo od f ro m him
. B urke tt
wa s still han dcuffed and shackled at his legs. Burkett did not respon d to an of fic er’s o rd ers to li e d own on th e fl oo r; s o t he off ic er g rab be d B ur ke tt by the arm .One of fi ce r t es t i fi ed t hat the blanke t was used to pre vent B urkett fr om biting an of fice r. 3 Although a

nother off icer in Burke tt’s c ell testified that he did not reme mber seeing a blanket used a g a ins t Burk e tt, be c a

us e we c on str

ue the fa c ts in the light m os t f avo ra ble to P la int if

f, we wi ll a ssume that a blanke t was held up to B urkett’s he ad. Expe rt s d isa g re e d a

bo ut t he c a us e of B ur ke tt’ s de ath. On e e xpe rt c on c lud e d that B ur ke tt’ s d e ath 4 wa s th e re su lt o f t

ra umatic br a in i nju

ry ; and ano the r expe rt de te rm ine d that Burk e tt die d as a re su lt of “a cute e x haustive mania,” which occ urs in schizophrenic patients who e x perie nce “ ag itation, para noid delusion and comba t i ve beha vior followed by

car diovascular

collapse a

nd death whe n eff orts are made to re strain them. ” The latter expert noted that schizophrenia runs in B urkett’s family . We construe this conflictingevidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to Plainti ff. 4 Bu rk et t b ecame agi ta te d, m ov edto ward s t he off ic ers , and be ga n k ic ki ng hi s l eg s. During this altercation, the vials car ried by the nurse into Burkett’s c ell we re knoc ke d to the gr ound
. S ev er al of fi ce rs w re stl ed

Burk ett t o th e fl oor , w he re he
w as he ld f

ac e dow n. A n of

fi ce r he ld a

f old ed -u p bl an ke t up to Burk ett’ s he ad
. 3 Burk ett c ont inu ed

to re sis t be ing r es tr ai ne d by the of fi ce rs . A n of

fi ce r use d astun g u n ag ai n s tBu rk et t ; an dan o t h ero ff i ce r a d m i n i s t er ed “ kn ee s t ri k es ” t o Bu rk et t ’s outer thigh
. Of

ficer s then placed Burkett into a “ three-point restraint,” which linked th e re straints around h is wrists and ankles behind his back. A fter of ficer s pla ce d B urke tt in the thr ee -p oin t r es tr ai nt, the blanke t w as r em ove d f ro m the sid e
o f B u rk et t ’s h ea d . B u rk et ts t o p p ed m o v i n g ; an dm ed i ca l h el p arri v ed at Bu rk et t ’s cell. T he m edical personnel asked that Burkett’ s restraints be rem oved, w hich tookup to two m inutes. Burkett had stopp ed breathing; and m edical personnel conducted CPR. Burkett w as transfer red to a hospital, wher e he later wa s pr onounc ed

de ad
. 4“Claims involving the mistreatment of arr estee s or pre trial detaine es in custody are g overne d by 5 the Four teenth Amendme nt’s Due Proc ess Clause,” a nd require a showingof deliber ate indiffe renc e to a substantial risk of serious harm. Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1490 (11th Cir. 1996)
. But Plaintiff asser

ts protec tion under the Fourth Ame ndment, which is commonly an ea sier standa

rd for a plaintiff to mee t. “The pr ecise point at which a se izure ends (for purposes of Fourth Ame ndment c ov e ra g e ) an d

atw h i c hp r e tr i a l d e t e n t i o nb e g i n s ( g o v e r n e d un t i l a c o n v i c t i o nb y

th e F o urt e e nth Amendment) is not sett l ed i n t h is Circuit.” Hicks v. Moore, 422 F .3d 1246, 1253 n.7 (11th Cir. 20 05 ). He re , th e di st ri c t c ourt ana ly zed Pla int if f’ s e xce ssi ve fo rc e c la im und e r t he F ourt h Amendment; and t h e Corre ctional Off icer s ag ree that, based on the timing of B urkett’s a rre st and booking, the district co u rt ’s ap p ro ach a ppear s to be the “most log ical.” B eca use the Corre ctional Offic ers do not ar g ue that B urkett’s c l ai m co n ce rn s acts sepa rate from his seizure and do not challeng e the dist rict court’s use of a Fourth Amendment analy sis, we will assume -- based on the c ir c u ms ta n c e s o f th is p arti c u la

r c a s e - - tha t Bur

k e tt w a s s ti ll b e in gs e iz e d ; a n d w e w il l a

n a ly ze Pla int if f’ s c la im und e r t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt. Cla ims of de lib e rate ind if fe re nc e to a se ri ou s me dic a l ne e d o f a pr e tr ia l de ta ine e , s uc h a s B ur ke tt, 6 are g ov e rn e d b y

the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt’ s D ue Pr oc e ss C la us e inst ead of the E ig hth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishm ent Clause, which a pplies to simi lar c laims by convicted prisoners. See L anca ster v. Monroe County , Ala., 116 F .3d 1419, 1425 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997). 5 Pl ai nti ff a sse rt s th at

the Co rr ec tio na l O ff

ic er s vi olate d th e Fo urth Am endm ent by

using excessive force against Burkett in an attem pt to receive a bloo d sam

ple from him
. Plaintiff a lso argues that the Correctional Of ficer s 5 vio la te d th e D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t by a ct ing w ith deliberate indiffer ence to Burkett’ s m ental health. About this claim , P laintiff 6
ar gue s th at

the Co rr ec tio na l O ff

ic er s ig nor ed

Burk ett’ s m ed ic al ne ed s by appl y ing a ta se r gu n t o h im , in

jecti ng hi m

wit h a sed at iv e, an d p hysic al ly rest rai ni ng hi m . Ina ddi tio n, P la int if

f co nte nds that A la chuaCo unty a nd the S he ri ff

f ai le d to tr ai n of fi ce rs or to im ple m en t po lic ie s onhowto handl e m en ta lly il l de ta ine es a nd o n6

t h e ap p ro p ri at e u s e o f f

o rc e, wh i ch re s u l t ed i n d el i b er at e i n d i ff er en ce t o Bu rk et t ’s rig ht s.

“ Q ua lif

ie d im m uni ty of fe rs c om ple te pr ote ct ionf

or gov er nm en t of fi ci al s
sue d inthe ir

ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es if

the ir c ondu ct doe s no t vi olate c le ar ly
es ta bli she d st at

uto ry or c onst itu tio na l r igh ts o f w hic h ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d ha ve kn own .” Vin y ardv. Wils on , 31 1 F .3d13 40 , 13 46 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). To
re ce ive qua lif

ie d im m uni ty , the de fe ndant m

ust pr ove that he w as a ct ing w ith in the
sc ope of his dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity
. W ill ia m s v. Co nsol
. Ci ty of Ja ck sonv ill e, 341 F. 3d 1 261, 126 7 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. “ [T ] he bur de n [ the n] shi ft s to the pla int if f to de m onstrate that qu al if

ie d im m uni ty is not appr opr ia te ” by

sho w ing ( 1) that a
co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n oc curr ed a nd ( 2) that the c onst itu tio na l r igh t w as c le ar ly
es tabl is he d. Lu m le y

v. Ci ty of Dad e Ci ty, 32 7 F .3d11 86 , 11 94 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Be ca use the part ie s do not

dis put e that the Co rr ec tio na l O ff ic er s w er e ac tin g within their discretionary authority , w e consider whether the Corre ctional Off

icers vio la te d ac le ar ly

e sta bli she d c onst itu tio na l r igh t. W e be ginw ithP la int if

f’ s F ourth A m en dm en t c la im
. T o de te rm ine if excessive force wa s used, w e “ ask whether a rea sonable officer w ouldbelieve that [the] level of forc e [w as] necessary in the situatio n at hand.” L ee, 284 F.3d at 1197
. T he re fo re , “ [a ] n of fi ce r w ill be e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty if his a ct ion s7

w er e obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble - - that i s, if

ar ea sona

ble of fi ce r in the sam e sit

ua tio n
w oul d have be lie ve d th at the f or ce use d w as not

e xc es siv e. ” T hor

nto n v. Ci ty

of Ma co n, 132 F
. 3d 1 395, 140 0 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) ; se e V iny ar d, 311 F
. 3d a t 13 47 (“ Use of force m

ust be judged on a case-by -case basis from the perspective of a
reas on ab le off

ic er o n t he sce ne , [in st eadof] wit h t he 20 /2 0 v is io n o f hi nd si gh t.”)
. He re, considering Burkett’s agitation when offic ers enter ed his cell to draw bloo d along with his dem onstration of an alter ed m ental state and ear lier ag gr es sio n th at

inc lud ed bit ing a n of

fi ce r, a n of

fi ce r co uld

ha ve be lie ve d th at

the fo rc e use d w as r ea sona

bly ne ce ssary . Whe n of

fi ce rs w er e in B urke tt’ s c el l f or the blo od t es t, Burk ett be cam e ag gr es siv e; a nd s ev er al of fi ce rs w er e ne ed ed

to re str ai n him
. T he Co rr ec tio na l O ff ic er s w er e re qui re d to m ak e anins tant d ec isi on a bout ho w to ke ep Bu rk et t u nd er co nt ro l an d h ow t o s ecu re a b lo od sample f ro m hi m . W e do n ot b el ie ve that the Co rr ec tio na l O ff ic er s a ppl ie d e xc es siv e fo rc e in vio la tio n of

the F ourth A m en dm en t. W e tu rn to Pla in ti ff’s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t (Du e Pro ces s) cla im . To prevail on this claim , P laintiff m ust prov e that Burkett had an obje ctive m edical
ne edan d t ha t a g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al act edwit h d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t ha t n eed
. See Bozem an v. O rum , 422 F. 3d 12 65, 1272 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). E ven assum ing th at Burk ett’ s m en ta l he al th c ondi tio n w as a n ob j ec tiv e m ed ic al ne ed , P la int if f ha s no t8

de m onstrate d th at

the Co rr ec tio na l O ff

ic er s a ct ed

w ithde lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e to that need, w hich requires Plaintiff to show that (1) the C orrectional O ffice rs knew of ar isk of se ri ous harm

to Burk ett, ( 2) the y

dis re gard ed

thi s r isk , a nd ( 3) the ir conduct am ount ed to m ore than gross neglig ence. See id. P laintiff has not alleged th atth e Co rrec ti on al Offic ers de la y edor d en ie d B ur ke tt m en ta l h eal th tre at m en t. As discussed, the forc e used to control Burkett was not excessive; and Plaintiff has
no t s ho wn t ha t t he Co rrec ti on al Offic ers ’ act s re fle ctm or e th an gro ss ne gl ig en ce. W e see no due process violation here. Beca use the Correc tional Office rs’ conduct did not cause Burkett to suffer a constitu tional deprivatio n, w e need not decide whether the Corre ctional Off

icers
w er e en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty . S ee S au ci er

v. K at z, 121 S
. Ct
. 215 1, 215 6 (2001) (the “ threshold question ” in qualified im m unityanaly sis is whether Pl ai nti ff ’ s a lle ga tio ns, if

tr ue , e sta bli sh a c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n, a nd tha t, if no constitu tional vi olation exists, one need not inq uire into qualified imm unity ). In ad dit ion , be ca

use P la int if

f’ s c om pla int f ai le d to state ac onst itu tio na l de pr ivatio n,
ne ith er A la chuaCo unty

nor the S he ri ff

c anbe li ab le und er

se ct ion198 3 ba se d on
a fa ilure to tr ai n pr ope rl y the Co rr ec tio na l O ff

ic er s or to im ple m en t po lic ie s on
m entally ill detainees. S ee H icks, 422 F.3d 1253 (“ Beca use we conclude that Pl ai nti ff ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts w er e not vio la te d .
. . , P la int if

f cannot m ai nta in aIn her r eply brief, Plaintiff c halleng es -- for the first time on appea l - - the district court’s grant 7 of summary

judgme nt to Defe ndants on her state law cla ims for wrong ful death. Be cause Plaintiff did no t r a ise thi s issu e in h e r i nit ia l br ie f, we de c lin e to c on sid e r i t. S e e Un ite d St ate s v . Wh ite se ll, 314 F.3d 1251, 1256 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (ar g uments raised f or the fir s t time in a reply brief a re not proper ly befor e a r eviewingcourt). 9 [s ec tio n] 198 3 a ct ionf

or sup er vis or y li ab ili ty [ ag ai nst S he ri ff a nd o the rs ] f

or fa ilure to tr ai n. ”) ; R oone y v. W at son, 101 F
. 3d 1 378, 138 1- 82 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) (w here plaintiff suffe rs no constit ution al deprivation, courts need not cons ider policy or custom

of m unicipalit y ). In sum , w e af firm the grant of sum

m ary j udgm en t t o D ef

en dants . 7 AFFIR MED.