F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 25, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1125 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-03191 -CV -BBM- 1 WARDEN STEPHEN BENT ON, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us BRIAN HOPKINS, JOHN ANDERSON, D ef en dants -Appe lle es , COUNTY OF CHEROKEE, D ef en dant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 25 , 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:We are unpersua ded by Be nton’s other a

rguments, which he makes in summar y f a s hion, that 1 his state law claims wer e valid, that the defendants were not entitled to officia l immunit y , and that Be nton presente d sufficie nt evidence from which to infe r a c onspiracy exis ted b et we en the defe ndants. Pursuant to Rule 28(a)( 9) of the F eder al Rules of Appe llate P roce dure, a n appellant’ s brief must conta in “(A) appellant’ s contentions and the r easons f or them, wit h citations to the a uth or iti e s and parts of

the re c or d o n whic h th e a pp e lla nt r e lie s; a

nd (B ) f or e a c h is su e , a

c on c ise statement of the a

pplicable standa

rd of r eview.” Fe d. R. App. P . 28(a) (9)( A)-( B) . We have he ld that the fa ilure to e la

bo rate or pr ov ide any

c itatio n o f a

uth or ity in s up po rt

of an a rgume nt o n a

pp e a l a c ts as a waiver of the argument for appellate purposes. See Flanig an' s Enters., Inc. of Ga . v . Fulton County , 242 F.3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001). Moreove r, fa ilure to offe r ar gument on an issue a b an d o n s i t . S e e S e p u l v e d a v . U . S . A t t ’ y G e n . , 4 0 1 F . 3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 2 8 n . 2 ( 1 1 thC i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . F i n a l l y, and most fatal to the afore mentioned additi onal arguments, is that passingref ere nces to issues ar e insufficient to ra ise the cla im on appeal. I d. 2 St ep he n B en tonappe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of O ff ic er s B ri anH opki ns and J ohn A nde rs on o f the Ch er oke e Co unty Sh er if f’ s D ep ar tm en t onBe nto n’ s c la im , f ile d un de r 42 U . S. C. § 19 83, a lle gin g use of e xc es siv e fo rc e dur ing atr af fi c sto p and atte ndant arr es t. O n a ppe al , Benton argues that the dist rict court er red by concludin g the officer s wer e entitled to qua lif ie d im m uni ty be ca use Be nto n f

ai le d to a lle ge ac onst itu tio na l vi olatio n. 1 W e dis ag re e an d, a cc or din gly , a ff irm the e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d on qu a l i f i e di mm un i ty. T he part ie s are f

am ili ar w iththe ba ck gr ound

f ac ts, w hic h w er e tho ro ughl y de sc rib edby the di st ric t co ur t i n i ts ord er, an d we d o n otreco un t the m ag ai n h ere. W e re view de novo a district court’ s entry of a sum m ary j udgm ent m otion based on qu alified im

m unity , a pply ing th e sam e legal standards as the district court. S ee3

L ee v. F er

raro , 284 F . 3d 1 188, 119 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . W e re sol ve a ll iss ue s of m aterial fa ct in favor of the pla int if

f, and the n de te rm ine the le ga l qu es tio n of w he the r the de fe ndant i s e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty und er that ve rs ionof

the f ac ts. I d. A s w e obse rv ed

in L ee v. F er

raro : Q ua lif ie d im m uni ty of fe rs “ co m ple te pr ote ct ionf

or gov er nm en t officials sued in their indiv idual capacities as long as ‘ their conduct vio la te s no c le ar ly

e sta 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 have kno w n. ’ ” T hom as v. Ro be rt s, 261 F. 3d 1 160, 117 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( quot ing H ar lowv. F itz ge ra ld, 457 U.S . 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727 , 2738, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982)) (a ddi tio na l qu otatio ns o m itt ed ). T he pur pose of thi s im m uni ty is to allow governm ent officials to car ry out their discretionary

duties without the fear of

personal liabilityor harassing litigatio n, see A nde rs on v . Cr ei ght on, 483 U . S. 635 , 638 , 107 S . Ct . 303 4, 303 8, 97 L . E d. 2d 5 23 ( 1987 ), pr ote ct ing f ro m sui t “ al l bu t the pla inl y incom petent or one who is knowingl y violatin g the federa l law. ” W illing ham

v. L ough nan, 261 F.3d 1178, 1187 (11th Cir. 2001). Be ca use qua lif ie d im m uni ty is a de fe nse not

onl y f ro m li ab ili ty , but also from suit, it is “ im

portant for a court to ascer tain the validit y

of a qua lif ie d im m uni ty de fe nse a s e ar ly

in the law sui t a s po ssi ble . ” G JR Invs., Inc. v. County

of E scam bia, 132 F. 3d 13 59, 1370 (11t h Cir. 19 98 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . 284 F. 3d at 11 93- 94. A governm ent official who is su ed under § 198 3 m ay seek sum m ary j udgm en t onthe gr ound

that he is en tit le d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty . H oll om ane x r el . H oll om anv. H ar land, 370 F . 3d 1 252, 126 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . T o be e lig ibl e fo r4

qua lif ie d im m uni ty , the of

fi ci al m ust f ir st e sta bli sh tha t he w as pe rf

orm ing a

“ di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n” at t he ti m e th e al le ge d v io la ti on of f ed eral law o ccu rred . Id . a t 12 63- 64. O nc e the of fi ci al ha s e sta

bli she d th at

he w as e nga ge d ina dis cr et ion ar

y f unc tio n, the pla int if

f be ar s th e bur de n of

de m onstratin g th at

the of fi ci al is not

e nti tle d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty . I d. a t 12 64. I n or de r to d em onstrate th atth e o ffi ci al is no t en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y , th e p la in ti ff m

us t s ho w two thing s: (1) that the defendant has com m itted a constitu tional vi olation , and (2) that th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tth e d e f e n d an tv i o l a t e dw a s “c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s h e d ” a tth e t i me he di d i t. Sau ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 2 01 (20 01 ); Ho ll om an , 37 0 F .3dat 1 26 4. T his tw o- ste p in qui ry

pr ovi de s “ am

ple pr ote ct ionto al l bu t the pla inl y incom petent or those who kno wingly violate the law. ” Malley v. Br iggs, 475 U.S . 335, 341 (198 6). H er e, it is not dis put ed that the of

fi ce rs w er e ac tin g w ith in the sc ope of the ir discretionary

authority at all m aterial tim es. The district court foundthat the force used to restrain a noncom pliant Benton -- consist ing of the use of pepper spray an d m ult ipl e blo w s w ithan A SP ba ton , w hic h is ar etra ct ab le m et al ba tonw itha blunt t ip - - w as not

e xc es siv e in n at

ur e an d, ind ee d, w as c al le d f or und er the circum stances. A ccordingly , on the fir st prong of Saucie r, the district court co nc lud ed

that B en tonf

ai le d to pr es en t su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce to es ta

bli sh a5

constitu tional vi olation and the defendants wer e entitled to the defense of qualified imm un it y . T he F ourth A m en dm en t sa fe guard s “ [t ] he r igh t of the pe opl e to b e se cure in the ir pe rs ons, hou se s, pa

pe rs , and e ff

ec ts, a ga ins t unre as ona

ble se ar ch es and se iz ur es . ” T he F ourth A m en dm en t e nc om pa sse s ape rs on’ s r igh t t o be f re e fr om the use of e xc es siv e fo rc e in the c our se of an in ve sti ga tor

y sto p or “ se iz ur e” of

the pe rs on. S ee G raham

v. Co nnor , 490 U . S. 386 , 394 -9 5 ( 1989 ). Mo re ove r, “ Fo urth A m en dm en t j ur isp ru de nc e ha s lo ng r ec ogni ze d th at the r igh t t o m ak e anarr es t or inv es tig at or

y sto p ne ce ssari ly

c ar ri es w ithit

the r igh t t o us e som e de gr ee of phy sic al c oe rc ionor

thr eat the re of

to ef fe ct it . ” I d. Inan e xc es siv e fo rc e ca se , “ qua lif ie d im m uni ty appl ie s un le ss a

ppl ic at ionof the standard

w oul d in ev ita

bly le ad e ve ry r ea sona ble of fi ce r . . . to c onc lud e the fo rc e w as unl aw fu l. ” S ee P ost v. Ci ty of F ort L au de rd al e, 7 F . 3d 1 552, 155 9 ( 11th Ci r. 199 3) ( quot at ionom itt ed ). “ T he c al cu lus of r ea sona ble ne ss m ust e m body al low an ce f

or the f ac t tha t po lic e of

fi ce rs are of

te n f or ce d to m ak e spl it se co nd j udgm ents -- in circ um stances that are te nse, uncerta in, and rapidly evolvin g -- ab o u tth e a mo u n to f

f o r c e th a ti s n e c e s s ary i nap art i c u l ar s i tu a t i o n . ” S e e G r ah a m, 490 U . S. a t 39 6- 97. W e have sa id tha t “ G raham dic ta te s un am

big uous ly that the fo rc e use d by

apol ic e of

fi ce r in c ar

ry ing out an arr es t m

ust be r ea sona

bly6

pr opor tio na te to the ne ed

f or that f or ce , w hic h is m ea sur ed

by the se ve ri ty

of the cr im e, the dange r to the of fi ce r, and the r isk

of f lig ht. ” L ee , 284 F . 3d at 11 98. In determ ining whether

an office r’ s use of force wa s objectively rea sonable, the Co urt c onsi de rs avari ety of f ac tor s in cl udi ng “ (1 ) the ne ed f or the appl ic at ion of f or ce , ( 2) the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e ne ed and the a m ount

of f or ce use d, ( 3) the e xte nt o f the inj ur

y inf lic te d and, ( 4) w he the r the f or ce w as appl ie d ingoo d fa ithor m al ic iou sly

and s ad ist ic al ly . ” S lic ke r v. Ja ck son, 215 F . 3d 1 225, 123 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (qu ot in g Les li e v . Ing ram , 78 6 F .2d15 33 , 15 36 (11 th Cir . 19 86 )). The C ourt also cons iders “ the severity of the crim e, whether

the suspect pos e[d] an imm ed ia te th reat , andwhet he r th e su sp ect[was ] res is ti ng or f le ei ng .” See Po st , 7 F.3 d a t 1 55 9 (c it at io n o m it te d) . O n a ppe al , Be nto n hi ghl igh ts tw o in stanc es that he a lle ge s w er e ex ce ssi ve fo rc e: ( 1) the use of

pe ppe r spr ay , and ( 2) the use of an A SP ba ton . Whe n th es e two res tra in t m et ho ds were em pl oyed, t he fol lo win g c irc um st an ces ex is te d. D ur ing atr af

fi c sto p, m

uc h of w hic h w as c ap tur ed

by avid eo c am er a m ount ed in the arr es tin g of

fi ce r’ s squa d c ar , the of

fi ce rs ha d le ar

ne d th at Be nto n w as dr ivi ng w ithali ce nse that ha d be enr ev oke d f or a“ se ri ous vio la tio n. ” A ft er be ing inf orm ed that he w as und er

arr es t f or dr ivi ng w ithar ev oke d li ce nse , Be nto n refused the offic ers’ verbal com m ands. When Off

icer H opki ns m oved behin d Mr.7

B e n t o nan da t t e mp t e danu n arme dc o n tr o l l i n g t e c h n i qu e t o g e tM r . B e n t o n ’s arms in pos ition for handcuffing, M r. Benton did n ot com ply . As the off

icers continued their attem

pts to restrain Benton, he struggled and, at one point , swung an elbo w at the of fi ce rs . I t w as a ft er

Be nto n a tte m

pte d to pul l aw ay

f ro m the of fi ce rs by twisting his own ar

m that Of ficer Hopkins attem

pted to sp ray

Benton with pepper spr ay . A ft er

the w ind ble wthe spr ay

ba ck in both of

fi ce rs ’ f ac es , O ff ic er H opki ns ran up clo se r to Ben to n a ndfir eda di rectbu rs t o f pe pp er s pr ay in to Ben to n’s eyes. A ft er y el lin g a t the of

fi ce rs , “ I have c ont ac ts i n, y ou a ssh ole , ” Be nto n c ont inu ed to st ru gg le an d a ctno n- co m pl ia nt ly. A t so m e poi nt a ft er

a dm ini str at ionof

the pe ppe r spr ay , Be nto n a tte m pte d to ba ck aw ay . A ft er

O ff ic er A nde rs on tri ed

to ta ck le Be nto n, but

los t hi s f oot ing , Benton landed o n top o f O ffice r A nderson. It w as at that point th at O ffice r Hopkins st ruck Benton with the AS P baton, tw o or three tim es in the legs and on ce in the ne ck . A s O ff

ic er H opki ns a

ppl ie d th e str ike s, he c om m an de d B en tonto co m ply . H opki ns s top pe d a

ppl y ing f or ce w he n B en tonsto ppe d r es ist ing . T he le ngth of the vid eo ta

pe r ec or de d f

ro m A nde rs on’ s squa d c ar

r ev ea le d th at

the en tir e inc ide nt l as te d a

bout 40 s ec onds .8

E ve n a ssum ing Be nto n’ s ve rs ionof the f ac ts, w e cannot

say that the use of pe ppe r spr ay

to subd ue him and f or ce him to co m ply w as unr ea sona

ble . W e have obse rv ed : Pe ppe r spr ay

is ane spe ci al ly

non inv as ive w ea

pon an d m ay

be one very safe and effec tive m ethod of hand ling a vio lent susp ect who m ay ca use f urthe r harm

to him se lf

or oth er s. S hoc k and s ur

pr ise m ay be pr ope r an d us ef

ul t ool s ina voi din g un ne ce ssary inj ur y to ev er y one invo lved when dealing with potentiallyviolent su spects. G iven that pe ppe r spr ay

or din ar ily

c au se s on ly

te m por ar y dis co m fo rt , it

m ay be re as ona bly e m plo y ed a ga ins t po te nti al ly

vio le nt s uspe ct s, e spe ci al ly tho se sus pe ct s who h av e al re ady a ssa ult ed anothe r pe rs on and r em ai n ar m ed . McCorm ick v. City

of Fort L auderdale, 333 F.3d 1234 , 1245 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Viny ard v. W ilson , 311 F. 3d 13 40, 1348 (11t h Cir. 2002 ) (noting that “ pepper spray is a very rea sonable alternative to escalating a phy sical struggle with an ar re ste e” ). “ Co urts h av e co nsi ste ntl y c onc lud ed

that us ing pe ppe r spr ay

is reasonable . . . wher e the plaintiff w as either r esisting arr est or ref using police re que sts , suc h a s r eque sts to en te r a pa tr ol c ar or go t o th e hosp ita l. ” V iny ar d, 311 F. 3d at 13 48. T he f

ac tor s w e out lin ed

in Sl ic ke r pla inl y

w ei gh a ga ins t f

ind ing a constitu tional vi olation here. See 215 F.3d at 1233. The pepper spray wa s used ba se d onBe nto n’ s c ont inu ed r es ist an ce , and the use of pe ppe r spr ay , in the f

ac e of Ben to n’s n on -co m

pl ia nc e, pl ai nl y

was p ro po rti on al to th e n eedforfor ce.9

Mor eo ve r, Be nto n pr es en te d no e vid en ce that the of fi ce rs a ct ed

in a m al ic iou s or sa dis tic m anne r. I d. W e lik ew ise f

ind that the re w as no e vid en ce of e xc es siv e fo rc e re sul tin g from the baton strikes, which followed B enton’s continued non -com pliance, e ven af te r the of fi ce rs ha d a dm ini ste re d th e pe ppe r spr ay dir ec tly in his e y es . B en ton ha d st ar te d to ba ck

aw ay in a m anne r that a

r ea sona ble of fi ce r co uld

have co nstru ed a s an a tte m

pt t o f le e, se e Po st, 7 F . 3d at 15 59 ( statin g th at in ev al ua tin g anof fi ce r’ s us e of

f or ce , Co urt w ill c onsi de r “ w he the r the sus pe ct [ w as ] r es ist ing or fleeing”). Moreover, when O ffice r A nderson tried to tackle him , B enton land ed on t op o f the of

fi ce r, thu s pi nni ng h im

down. I t w as a ft er

obs er vin g B en tonon t op of A nde rs on tha t O ff

ic er H opki ns a

ppl ie d th e ba tonstr ike s. C f. id. ( enum er at ing

“ whether the susp ect pose[d] an im m ediate threat” as a fa ctor to consider when ev al ua tin g of

fi ce r’ s us e of

f or ce ). Si m

ply put , giv enthe tot al ity

of the ci rc um stanc es w hic h f

ac ed the of fi ce rs a t the sc en e of

the tr af fi c sto p and the events that develop ed when the off icers trie d to arrest Be nton , ther e is no evidence sufficient to show that the force used w as unreasonable. W e agre e w ith the dis trict co urt’ s ana ly sis of

the f ir st S au ci er

pr ong an d it s c onc lus ionthat, on this r ec or d, Be nto n di d no t satis fy

his bur de n to sho wthat the of fi ce rs ’ c ondu ct

vio la te d a co nst itu tio na l r igh t. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t. AFFIRMED.