FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 28, 2006 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 06- 1297 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0122 7- CV -T -2 6- E A J GA RY W HI TE , individu ally and as personal represe ntative of the estate of Miles White, JAM IE W HITE, CAMERON WHITE , ADDISON W HITE, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us PO L K CO U N T Y , am

uni ci pa l c or

por at ion , S C O TT LA WS O N , i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, GARY HESTER, in h is in di vi du al cap aci ty, S A M U EL TA Y LO R , M a jo r , i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, LAW RENCE CROW, Sheri ff, in hi s i nd iv id ua l capa ci ty, etal., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

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

(N ove m be r 28, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.Be fore Def endants filed the ir motion for summary judgme nt in this case , Offic er L awson ha d 1 filed pro se a motion for summ ary judgme nt, which the district court denied bec ause the case was no t y e t ri pe fo r dis po sit ion by summa ry jud g me nt. In its or de r g ra nti ng summa

ry judgm ent to Def endants, the district c o u

r t a c k n o w le d g e d that it previously had denie d Offic er L awson’s summar y j u d gm en tm o t i o nb u tex p l ai n edth atOf fi ce r Law s o n“s h o u l d

o b t ai nth e b e n e f

i t s o f t h i s ru l i n g” g rantingsummary

judgme nt to Defe ndants bec ause no c onstitut ional violation was committed. Of fi ce r Law s o nl at er

s t at edi nan i n ci d en tre p o rtth atJ ac o b y h adb ee ns p ee d i n g. 2 2 PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff s, w ho are f

am ily m em be rs of Mi le s Whit e, de ce as ed , appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o D ef

en dants - - Po lk C ounty , F lor ida
an d m em be rs of the P olk Co unty S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t i nc lud ing O ff

ic er S co tt Lawso n -- on th ei r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 s ui t. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we 1
a f f i rm. T his c as e is a

bout a n auto m obi le a cc ide nt tha t oc curr ed in the e ar ly

m or nin g hours of 31 May

2002
. White, w ho was 16 y ears old, w as a passenger in a c ar driven by 18-y ear- old Adam

Jacoby
. During a patrol ar ound 2:30 a.m ., Of ficer La w s o n , wh o wa s dr i v i n g a n u n mar k e dp a t r o l v e h i c l e , b e g a n t o f o l l o wJ a c o b y. 2 Of ficer Lawson did no t activate his car’ s siren or other em ergency equipm ent as he followed Jacoby ’ s car f or over 15 m iles. D uring Offic er L aw son’s surveillance of Ja co by ’ s c ar , both ve hic le s tr av el ed a t sp ee ds e xc ee din g 10 0 m
. p. h. a nd disob ey ed traff

ic law s. A t som e point du ring this chase, Of ficer Lawson learned that Jacoby ’ s car w as not sto len. W hile traveling ov er 100 m .p. h., Jacoby ’ s carThe re cord c ontains evidenc e that Of fice r L awson perf

ormed an unnece ssary

strip searc h of a 3 fiftee n-y ear -old male two we eks bef ore the cra sh. We note that Plaintiffs do not challeng e the district c ourt’s deter mination that pur suit of J acoby ’s 4 c ar d id n ot r e su lt i n a

n unla wf ul s e izur e un de r t

he F ourt h Am end men t; the re fo re , th is c la im i s a ba nd on e d. Se e Un ite d State s v. F or d, 27 0 F .3 d 13 46 , 13 47 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) (e xpla ini ngtha t a pa rt y abandons a

n issue when he fails to raise it in his initi al brief on appea l). I n ad d i t i o n , we a c knowled g e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt de c lin e d to e xer c ise su

pp le me nta l juri sd ic tio n o ve r P la int if fs ’ state law c la ims a g a ins t Po lk C ounty ; so Pla int if fs might p ur su e the se c la ims in s tate c ourt . 3 failed to navigate a curve in the road; and his vehicle crashed, killing White. A fter the c ra sh, m an y

pe rs ons co m

pla ine d to P olk

Co unty of fi ci al s th at

O ff ic er L aw son ha d pe rf orm ed unn ec es sary

phy sic al se ar ch es of

the m a t the ti m e of

the ir a rr es t. 3 O n a ppe al P la int if

fs arg ue that L aw son’ s surv ei llanc e of Ja co by a nd Whit e
s h o ck s th e c o n s ci en ce an dth er ef o re v i o l at es th e F o u rt ee n t h Am en d m en t ’s guarantee of substantiv e due process. They contend that Office r L aw son in tended t o h ar m Whi t e b as ed o n th e c i rc u m s t an ce s o f t h e c ra s h an dOf fi ce r L aw s o n ’s
re fu s al t o an s we r q u es t i o n s af t erth e c ra s h ab o u th i s i n t en t i o n s i n ch as i n g J ac o b y’ s
car. 4

“ W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the facts - - as supported bythe evidence in the record - - and rea sonable inferences fr om tho se f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . ” Y oung v. Ci ty of P al m Bay , 358 F
. 3d 8 59, 860 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)
. S um m ar y j udgm en t i s pr ope r w he re no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t e xis ts. I d.4

Title 42 U .S .C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for constitutio nal vio la tio ns c om

m itt ed und er c olo r of state law . ” Burt on v . Ci ty of Be lle G la de , 178 F. 3d 11 75, 1187-88 (11th Cir. 1999). To state a section 1983 claim , a plaintiff
m ust de m onstrate that the de fe ndant, a ct ing und er c olo r of state law , de pr ive d hi m
o r h e r o f ar i g h ts e c u r e db y t h e C o n s t i tu t i o n o r th e l a w s o f

th e U n i t e dS t a t e s . A m. Mf rs . Mu t. I ns. Co
. v. S ull ivan, 119 S
. Ct
. 977 , 985 ( 1999 ). T he f ir st s te p in
ev al ua tin g ase ct ion198 3 c la im is to “ ide nti fy

the e xa ct c ont our s of

the und er ly ing ri ght sa id t o have be envio la te d. ” Co unty of S ac ram en to v . L ew is, 118 S
. Ct
. 170 8, 1714 n.5 (1998). The S uprem e Court’ s decision in Le wis involved a hig h-speed police pur sui t duri ng whic h an of fi ce r ch as ed

aspe ed ing m oto rc y cl e dr ive r, r es ult ing in the de ath of

the m oto rc y cl e’ s pa sse nge r af te r the m oto rc y cl e tip pe d ov er a nd the officer struck the passenger. I d. at 1712. I n that case, the Suprem e Court
ex pla ine d th at

the c ri tic al f

ac tor in de te rm ini ng whe the r the of fi ce r vio la te d th e Fo urte en th A m en dm en t’ s gu ar an te e of sub stanti ve due pr oc es s w as w he the r the of fi ce r’ s c ondu ct

sho ck ed the c onsc ie nc e, w hic h oc curs w he n apla int if f can sh ow that the of

fi ce r ha d “ a pur

pose to ca

use harm unr el at ed

to the le git im at e obj ec t of
arre st.” S ee id. at 1711-12 ; see also id. at 1720 (explaining th at “ high -speed ch as es w ithno i nte nt t o harm sus pe ct s ph y sic al ly

or to w or se n th ei r le ga l pl igh t doPlaintiffs argue that Of fice r L awson did not eng ag e in “split second d ec i s i o n m ak i ng ” that 5 require s application of the shoc k-the-c onscienc e standa rd; and they

contend that we should consider Offic er L awson’s c onduct under a deliberate- indiffer ence standard. But Plaintiffs have not directe d us to e vidence that Offic er L awson had sufficie nt time to de liberate on h i s co n du ct b efor e un de rt akin gpursu it of J a c ob y ’s ve hic le . Ins te a d th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d in dic ate s th at th is c a se involved a hig h-spee d chase g overne d by the shock-the -consc ience standard. We are not persuade d -- in the a bsence of even a scinti lla of other e vidence that Offic er L awson 6 int e nd e d to ha

rm Whit e -- by

Pla int if fs ’ a sse rt ion

tha t, b e c a us e Of fi c e r L aws on in vo ked his F if th Amendment privileg e and did not a nswer a deposition question about whether he intended to ha

rm Whit e a nd Jac ob y , w e sh ou ld i nf

e r t hat Of fi c e r L aws on did int e nd su c h ha rm . Se e Av ir g an v . H ull , 93 2 F .2 d 1 57 2, 15 80 (1 1th Cir . 199 1) (“ Inv oc atio n of t he fi ft h ame ndme nt p ri vil e g e did no t g ive ri se to any leg ally cog nizable infere nces sufficient to preclude e ntry of summary

judgme nt. The neg ative infere nce, if

any , to be drawn from the asser tion of the fifth amendme nt [ by the moving pa

rty ] does not substit ute for e vidence neede d to me et the [non-moving pa rty ’s] burden of produc tion.”). And we note that, in his pro se motion fo r s u m m ar y judgme nt, Office r L awson stated that he did not int e nd to a ssa ult Whit e and

Jac ob y or to w or se n th e ir

le g a l pl ig ht. 5 not giv e ri se to lia

bil ity und er the F ourte en th A m en dm en t, r edre ssi ble by a n a ct ion under [section] 1983 ”). T herefor e, “ when unforeseen c ircum stances dem and an of fi ce r’ s in stant j udgm en t” - - in s itu at ion s su cha s ahig h- spe ed c ha se - - a show ing that an of fi ce r’ s r ec kle ssn es s c au se d pl ai nti ff ’ s in j ur y is ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a
su bs ta nt iv e due pro ces s cl ai m . See i d. at 17 20
. 5 He re, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that Of ficer Lawson’ s acts w ere
m o t i v at ed b y an i n t en tt o h ar m Whi t e; an dwe co n cl u d e t h at Of fi ce r L aw s o n ’s
co nduc t do es not

r ise to a le ve l tha t sh oc ks the c onsc ie nc e. S ee id. a t 17 21 6 (c onc lud ing that “ [r ] eg ar dle ss whe the r [i nit ia tin g ahig h- spe ed c ha se ] of fe nde d th e
reas on ab le ne ss he ldup by tort law o r th e b al an ce s tru ckin law en fo rcem en t’s o wn
co de s of sound p ra ct ic e, it

doe s no t sh oc k th e co nsc ie nc e, a nd [ de fe ndants ] a re not6

ca lle d up on t o answ er

f or it und er [ se ct ion ] 198 3” ); V au ghn v. Co x, 343 F
. 3d 1323 , 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2003 ) (c onclud ing th at w hen a police officer fired shot s to w ar ds a

ve hic le be ing pur sue d, r es ult ing in a bul le t hi tti ng the spi ne of one of the vehicle’ s passengers and ins tantly paraly zing him

below the chest, summ ary j udgm ent to defendants was appropriate beca use plaintiff did no t present evidence that the of

fi ce r’ s a ct s w er e m oti va te d by a nythi ng o the r than ade sir e to arr es t the
ve hic le ’ s oc cu

pants ); F ag anv. Ci ty

of V ine land, 22 F
. 3d 1 296, 129 9- 1300 , 130 3, 1309 ( 3d C ir
. 199 4) ( enbanc ) (c onc lud ing that a pol ic e pur sui t - - dur ing w hic h a pol ic e of fi ce r pur sue d ave hic le by spe ed ing thr oughar es ide nti al ne ighbor hood vio la tin g tr af

fi c law s, r es ult ing in the de ath of som e of the oc cu pants of the pursued vehi cle -- did no t shock th e conscience). Beca use Off icer L aw son’s conduct did no t shock th e conscience, the district
co urt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o D ef

en dants w as not

e rr one ous. AFFIRMED.