FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 17, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 08 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 60 38 3- CV-WJZ RONALD C. W ILLIAMS,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us PLANTATION POL ICE DEPARTMENT, Po li ce Offi cer J os ep h M erco gl iano , PLANTATION POL ICE DEPARTMENT, Und erco ve r Det ect iv e St ev enBo wse r, PLANTATION POL ICE DEPARTMENT, Po li ce Offi cer J as on Grace, JOSEP H MERCOGLIANO, STEVEN BOW SER, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es , PLANTATION POL ICE DEPARTMENT, Dete ct iv e Will ia m

Tig he , Defen da nt .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 17 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro na ldC. W il li am s, a s ta te pri so ne r, ap pe al s p ro se th e jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Offi cers Jo se ph Merc og li an o, St ev enBo wse r, an d J as on Grace o f th e Pl an ta ti on Po li ce Dep art m en t (“ th e Dep art m en t” ) on hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cla im s o f
ex ces si ve for ce. Afterth or ou gh co ns id erat io n, we AFF IRM
. 1 I. BACKG ROUND Inhi s p ro se am en de d § 19 83 co m pl ai nt , W il li am s al le ge d tha t Offi cers Mer co gl iano , Bows er, an d Gra ce u se d e xc es si ve for ce dur in g h is arre ston 29 Mar ch20 04 . W il li am s cl ai m edth atOffic er Me rco gl iano sh othi m whi le hi s ve hi cl e was st op pe d a ndth enpu nc he d h im inth e fac e, aft er wh ic h Off ic ers Bo wse r an d Gra ce k ic ke d h im a few t im es . As a res ul t, Will ia m s as se rte d tha t h e wou ldli m

p fo r th e res t o f hi s l ife an d a ll of h is fro nttee th ha d t o b e rem ov ed . He

Prior to trial, the district court dismissed Defe ndant Will iam Tighe and all claims ex cept 1 for the e x cessive f

orce claims ag ainst Offic ers Me rcog liano, Bow ser, a nd Gra ce in their individual capac ities. 2reque st ed$1 00 ,00 0 i n c om pe ns at ory da m ag es an d $ 2.5 m il li on inpu ni ti ve da m ag es . At a jury tri al , th e th ree p ol ic e o ffi cers tes ti fie d a s fo ll ows . W il li am s fl ed 2 in hi s v eh ic le up on th e o ffi cers ’ at te m ptto ap pr eh en d h im

fora ho m e in va si on on 29 Marc h 2 00 4. Durin g the pu rs ui t, Will ia m s l os t co nt ro l o f hi s v eh ic le an d
wou ndup faci ng on co m in g traff ic . Office r Mer co gl iano pu ll edup infro ntof W il li am s, d is m ou nt edhi s m ot or cy cl e, an d o rd eredW il li am s t o s ho w hi s h an ds
. In st eadof c om

pl y in g, Will ia m s ac cel erat edhi s ca r di rect ly towar ds Offic er Mer co gl iano , who st ep pe d qui ck ly asid e an d s ho t fo urti m es at t he ve hi cl e as it pa ss edhi m . After Wil li am s s to pp edhi s v eh ic le , he was hand cu ffedan d g iv enfir st ai d b y Offic er Grac e fo r a g un sh otwou ndto hi s l eg be fo re the pa ram ed ic s arriv ed
. All th ree o ffi cers de ni edhi tt in g o r ki ck in g Wil li am s. Two eyewitn es se s co rro bo rat edth e o ffi cers ’ te st im on y . Three m ed ic al pe rs on ne l wh o treat edW il li am s atth e h os pi ta l fu rth er t es ti fie d tha t Will ia m s ex hi bi te d n o fa ci al in

juri es or o th er s ig ns of b ei ng be at en . Add it io na ll y , a fo ren si c in ve st ig at orop in edth atba se d o n the sk idm ark s, l oc at io n o f th e sh el l ca si ng s, an d th e b ul le t traject or ie s, Offi cer M erco gl iano fir edat Wil li am s’ veh ic le aft er i t

Prior to his civil trial, Will iams was convic ted of burg lary and sente nced to thirty

year s 2 of imprisonment. 3acce le rat edan d p la cedth e o ffi cer i n d an ge r. The p hysic al ev id en ce was th eref or e in co ns is te ntwith Wil li am s’ ass ert io n tha t h is ve hi cl e was st at io na ry at t he ti m e o f th e sh oo ti ng . The jury fo un d tha t the th ree o ffi cers di d n otus e ex ces si ve for ce i n v io la ti on of W il li am s’ con st itut io na l ri gh ts . After f in al jud gm en t was en te redon 26 Sep te m be r 20 08 infav or

of t he off

ic ers , W il li am s fi le d am ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. In th atm ot io n, Will ia m s as se rte d, i nt er al ia , th athe ha d re cei ve d n ewly dis co ve red in fo rm at io n wh ic h wo ul d h av e aff ect edth e tr ia l, an d tha t h e was un du ly pr ejud ic edby app eari ng inpri so n c lo th es an d l eg res tra in ts du rin g tria l. Bef or e th e m ot io n was rul edup on , W il li am s fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al fro m th e jud gm en t. The co urt s ub se qu en tl y

de ni edW il li am s’ m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Will ia m s d idno t fil e a n ew no ti ce o f ap pe al or a n a m en de d n ot ic e o f ap pe al
. On ap pe al , W il li am s co nt en ds th at : (1 ) he was p reju di cedby bei ng for ced to wear p ris on ga rm en ts an d s ha ck le s dur in g h is civ il tri al ; (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt im pr op erl y res ol ve d adi sc ov ery is su e; (3) he sh ou ldha ve pre va il edonhi s ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s b as edon th e ev id en ce attri al ; (4 ) he ha s n ewly dis co ve red in fo rm at io n wh ic h wo ul d h av e m ad e a d iff eren ce attri al ; an d (5 ) th e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldha ve ap po in te d h im co un se l.

4II . DISCUSSI ON

A. Iss ue s Ou ts id e th e Sco pe of Ap pe al A no ti ce o f ap pe al fro m

a jud gm en t tha t i s fi le d a fte r jud gm en t i s en te red , bu t b efo re d is po si ti on of apo st -jud gm en t m ot io n, wi ll be co m e eff ect iv e upo n di sp os it io n o f th e m ot io n. Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 4 (a)( 4) (B)( i) ( 20 08 ). Howev er, “ a pa rty int en di ng to ch al le ng e anord er d is po si ng of [ a p os t-ju dg m en t m ot io n] . . .
m us t fi le a no ti ce o f ap pe al , or an a m en de d n ot ic e o f ap pe al .” Id . 4(a )(4 )(B) (ii ). Acco rd in gl y , we m ay

no t co ns id er the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a po st -jud gm en t
m ot io n i f th e p arty

di d n otpro pe rly perf

ectanap pe al by eith er am en di ng hi s or ig in al no ti ce o f ap pe al or b y fil in g asep arat e ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f hi s p os tjud gm en t m ot io n. Se e Green v. Un io n F ou nd ry Co ., 28 1 F .3d12 29 , 12 33 (11 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (d ecl in in g t o c on si de r th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g Gre en ’s sec on d po st -jud gm en t m ot io n b ecau se Greendi d n otfil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al fro m th atord er oranam en de d n ot ic e o f ap pe al ). Here, two o f W il li am s’ arg um en ts – tha t h e was pre jud ic edby hav in g t o wear p ris on clo th es an d re st rai nt s, an d tha t h e h as ne wly di sc ov eredin fo rm at io n ab ou t h is ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s –were ra is edfor th e fi rs t t im e in hi s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al . Alth ou ghW il li am s fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al aft er jud gm en t was en te red , he di d n otfil e a n ew no ti ce o f ap pe al aft er the di stric t co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n fo r 5ne w tri al , no r di d h e fi le anam en de d n ot ic e o f ap pe al . He th us fai le d t o p erfe ctan

ap pe al fro m

th e o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r ne w tri al . See Fed . R. App . P. 4( a)(4 )(B) (ii ); Gre en , 28 1 F .3dat 1 23 3. Co ns eque nt ly, we wil l n otco ns id er the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on th e m ot io n fo r ne w tri al reg ard in g Wil li am s’ pri so n cl ot hi ng an d s ha ck le s an d h is cla im of n ewly dis co ve redin fo rm at io n. Se e Green , 28 1 F .3dat 1 23 3. B. Dis co ve ry

Iss ue Ingro un d two, Will ia m s co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y res ol ve d
anis su e co nc ern in g d is co ve ry m at eri al . W il li am s as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt
m is le d h im

in to th in ki ng he wou ldrece iv e fu ll di sc ov ery by 4:3 0 P .M. on th e d ay of tri al . Ins te ad , W il li am s fo un d o utaft er tria l s tarte d tha t h e wou ldno t re cei ve a bo x o f di sc ov ery m at eri al s tha t the Depa rtment h adsen t t o a tt orne y s re pr es en ti ng W il li am s atth atti m e. Acco rd in g t o Wil li am s, thi s b ox co nt ai ne d c rime scen e ph ot os an d m ed ic al reco rd s wh ic h wo ul d h av e p ro ve n h is cla im s o f ex ces si ve fo rce. Hadhe kn own he was n otgo in g t o re cei ve th e m at eri al s, Will iam s as se rts th athe wou ldhave m ov edfora co nt in ua nc e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on di sc ov ery m at te rs forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ma ynardv. Bd . of R eg en ts of t he Fla . Dep’t o f Edu c., 34 2 F .3d12 81 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The re co rdrefl ect s tha t, p rio r to tri al , th e d is tri ctco urt 6gr an te d Wil li am s’ pro se m ot io n re qu es ti ng pro du ct io n o f al l d oc um en ts an d

di sc ov ery ev id en ce. At the co m m en cem en t o f tr ia l o n 2 2 S ep te m be r 20 08 , W il li am s i nd ic at edth athe ha d n otrece iv edall of h is reque st eddi sc ov ery. The Dep artm en t re sp on de d tha t i t h adpro du cedall reque st eddo cu m en ts to hi s at to rn ey s atCarl to n F ie ld s, P.A., who were re pr es en ti ng W il li am s atth atti m e. The Department a ls o a ve rredth atitha d p rev io us ly sen t Will ia m s s ev eral de po si ti on s o f witne ss es . W il li am s ac kn owl ed ge d m eet in g wi th th e at to rn ey s fr om Carl to n F ie ld s b utst at edhe di sa gr eedwith the ir i de as an d thu s i nf orm edth em

he di d n otwantth ei r rep res en ta ti on . Accor di ng to W il li am s, Ca rlt on Fie ld s h adon ly
se nthi m th e d ep os it io ns of h im se lf a ndhi s wi fe. W il li am s ag reed , ho wev er, tha t th e Dep art m en t h adsen t h im sev eral it em s p rio r to th e d en ia l o f su m m ary jud gm en t. The co urt the n i nf orm edW il li am s tha t i t wo ul d c al l Ca rlt on Fie ld s an d in st ru ctth e at to rn ey s t o d el iv er an y di sc ov ery to th e co urt’s ch am be rs by 4:0 0 tha t aft ern oo n. Th e co urt caut io ne d Wil li am s tha t “ [t]he y m ay say the y do n’t h av e an yth in g.” R4- 14 9 a t 1 08
. Late r th atday , th e co urt i nf orm edW il li am s tha t Ca rlt on Fie ld s’ att orne y s ha d a dv is edth e co urt tha t, af te r th ey ha d wi th dr awnfro m

th e cas e, th ey

ha d
m ai le d Wil li am s al l o f th e d is co ve ry th ey po ss es se d. Aft er fu rth er d is cu ss io n, the

7co urt as ke d Wil li am s i f he was re ady to co nt in ue , to whi chW il li am s re pl ie d, “ Yes , si r.” Id . at 1 68
. Bas edup onth e rec or d, we fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Co nt rary to W il li am s’ cha ract eri zat io n, the di st ric t co urt d idno t m is le adW il li am s ab ou t whe th er h e wou ldrece iv e th e d is co ve ry sen t t o h is form er at to rn ey s atCarl to n Fi el ds . The co urt m ad e cl ear t ha t h is form er at to rn ey s m ay no t h av e an y di sc ov ery. AfterW il li am s l earn edfro m th e co urt tha t Ca rlt onFie ld s h ad fo rward edall di sc ov ery to W il li am s’ las t kno wn ad dr es s, Will ia m s d ecl aredth at he was re ady

to co nt in ue . Furt he rm or e, W il li am s ac kn owl ed ge d a t tria l tha t h e po ss es se d the un de rlyin g fi le fro m hi s cr im in al cas e, th e d ep os it io ns of h is wife
an d h im se lf, andothe r it em s the Depa rtment p ro vi de d t o h im . In fa ct , W il li am s at ta ch edsev eral do cum en ts to hi s b rie f op po si ng th e Dep art m en t’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, i nc lu di ng ph ot og rap hs of t he cri m e sc en e, th e st at em en t o f an ey ewit ne ss , exc erp ts of tria l t es ti m on y fro m hi s cr im in al cas e, pi ctur es of h is
ve hi cl e aft er the sh oo ti ng , a ph ot og rap h o f hi m se lf, p orti on s o f th e g ov ern m en t’s fil e, an d the arre staffi da vi t. Will ia m s’ con te nt io n tha t h e was pre jud ic edby the
no n- di sc lo su re o f cri m e sc en e p ho to gr ap hs is th us witho utm eri t. W e are si m il arl y

unpe rs ua de d b y

W il li am s’ arg um en t tha t h e was pre jud ic ed by his lac k o f m ed ic al reco rd s. His m ot io n fo r di sc ov ery di d n otin cl ud e a reque st 8fo r m ed ic al reco rd s, o nl y “bl oo d t es t re su lt s.” R 2- 66 at 2 . Giv enth atall th ree
m ed ic al pe rs on ne l wh o t es ti fie d a t tria l ag reedth atW il li am s h adno faci al in juri es orothe r si gn s o f be in g b eat en , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e to supp ort h is ass ert io n tha t h is
m ed ic al reco rd s wo ul d h av e p ro ve n h is ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re so lv in g thi s di sc ov ery m at te r. C. Whe th er Will ia m s Sh ou ldHave Prev ai le d OnHis Exce ss iv e Fo rce C la im W il li am s n ex t s ub m it s tha t h e sh ou ldha ve pre va il edon hi s ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s b as edon th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l. Bec au se W il li am s d idno t m ov e fo r a d ire ct edve rd ic t atth e co nc lu si on of a ll th e ev id en ce o r fo r a jud gm en t
no twi th st an di ng th e v erd ic t, “ ou r rev ie w is li mit edto a de te rm in at io n o f whe th er th ere i s an

y evi de nc e inth e rec or d” to supp ort the ve rd ic t. Co at s & Cla rk , Inc . v. Gay , 75 5 F .2d15 06 , 15 12 (11 thCir . 19 85 ). W e fi ndam pl e ev id en ce h ere. The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s a p ers on ’s rig htto be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce dur in g a rres t. See Oli ve r v. Fi or in o, 5 86 F.3d89 8, 9 05 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e ev al ua te th e o ffi cers ’ act io ns forob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss . See i d. “ [T]he qu es ti on is whet he r th e o ffi cers ’ act io ns are ‘ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e’ in l ig htof t he fact s an d c irc um st an ces co nf ro nt in g the m , witho utreg ardto th ei r un de rlyin g in te ntor m ot iv at io n.” Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 3 86 , 39 7, 1 09 S. Ct. 1 86 5,

918 72 (19 89 ). All of t he cir cum st an ces m us t b e co ns id ered , in cl ud in g the type o f cri m e atis su e, whe th er the su sp ectpo se d a n i m m ed ia te saf

ety th reat , andwhet he r th e su sp ectwas re si st in g a rres t o r was att em pt in g t o fl ee t o e va de arre st . Id. at 39 6, 1 09 S. Ct. at18 72 . W e v ie w th e ci rcu m st an ces fro m th atof areas on ab le of fic er o n the sce ne , bea rin g i n m in d tha t “ te ns e, un cert ai n, an d rapi dl y ev ol vi ng ci rcu m st an ces ” o fte n re qu ire “ sp li t-s eco ndjud ge m en ts ” ab ou t the ap pr op ria te us e of ne ces sa ry

for ce. Id . at 3 96 -9 7, 1 09 S. Ct. at18 72
. Here, the re was ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e to supp ort the jury’ s v erd ic t tha t the of fic ers di d n otus e ex ces si ve for ce. As m en ti on ed , th ree p ol ic e o ffi cers an d two ey ewit ne ss es tes ti fie d tha t Offi cer M erco gl iano fir edat Wil li am s af te r W il li am s at te m pt edto run hi m

ov er wi th hi s v eh ic le . This tes ti m on y was b ol st eredby tha t of th e fo ren si c in ve st ig at or , who ex pl ai ne d tha t the ph y si cal ev id en ce was co ns is te ntwith the off

ic ers ’ ve rs io n o f ev en ts . Evid en ce tha t Will ia m s p os edan imm ed ia te th reatto anoff ic er’s s afet y , as wel l as ev id en ce tha t h e was att em pt in g to ev ad e arr es t thr ou gh fli gh t, s up po rte d the jury’ s v erd ic t tha t Offi cer Mer co gl iano di d n otus e ex ces si ve for ce i n fi rin g a t Will ia m s. See id . at 3 96 , 10 9 S. Ct . at 1 87 2. As forth e p ur po rte d b eat in g tha t o ccurredaft er the sh oo ti ng , th e te st im on y of t he po li ce o ffi cers , ey ewit ne ss es , andm ed ic al pe rs on ne l

10ov erwh el m in gl y est ab li sh edth atth e th ree o ffi cers di d n otpu nc h o r ki ckW il li am s. Acco rd in gl y , W il li am s’ cha ll en ge to th e jury’ s v erd ic t i s wi th ou t m eri t. D. App oi nt m en t o f Co un se l Inhi s fi na l ar gu m en t, Will ia m s co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

fai li ng to ap po in t h im

co un se l an d tha t thi s fa il ur e v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . W e d is ag ree. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ba ss v. Pe rri n, 1 70 F.3d13 12 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Lik e al l ci vi l l it ig an ts , W il li am s h as no co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto co un se l. See id . at 13 20 ; Ki lg o v . Ric ks , 98 3 F .2d18 9, 1 93 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Rathe r, ap po in tm en t o f
co un se l i s a p riv il eg e whi cha co urt m ay gra ntinit s b ro addi sc ret io n fo r an in di ge ntpl ai nt iff

pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(1 ). Bas s, 1 70 F.3dat 1 32 0; Kil go , 98 3 F .2dat 1 93 . Suc h app oi nt m en t i s re se rv edfor“ ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces ,” ho wev er, s uc h a s wh ere t he fact s an d l eg al is su es are co m pl ex or no ve l. Bas s, 1 70 F.3dat 1 32 0; Kil go , 98 3 F .2dat 1 93
. Acco rd in g t o the reco rd , W il li am s fi le d apre -tr ia l m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t of co un se l p ur su an t t o § 19 15 (e). In re sp on se , th e d is tri ctco urt re ferr ed 3

The district cour

t previously

denied without pre

judice Willi ams’ first motion for 3 appointment of counse l. 11W il li am s’ reque stto th e Vol un te er Lawy ers Group. Se ve ral att orne y s fr om th e law firm of C arl to n F ie ld s, P.A. acc ep te d re pr es en ta ti on of Wil li am s an d fi le d a
no ti ce o f ap pe aran ce o n h is be ha lf o n 2 1 Au gu st20 08 . W il li am s m etwith h is at to rn ey s b utdi sa gr eedwith the ir p ro po se d p res en ta ti on of t he cas e. W il li am s ul ti m at el y

in fo rm edhi s at to rn ey s o n 1 1 S ep te m be r 20 08 th athe wis he d t o rep res en t h im se lf a t tria l b ecau se th ei r rep res en ta ti on“ was no t wo rk in g fo r hi m .” R3 -1 07 at 2 . Purs ua ntto W il li am s’ in st ru ct io n, Ca rlt on Fie ld s fi le d am ot io n t o withd raw fro m

th e cas e. Inth atm ot io n, Ca rlt on Fie ld s n ot edth atth ei r withd rawal
wou ldno t p reju di ce Will iam s b ecau se he ha d b eenrep res en ti ng hi m se lf i n the act io n fo r th e p as t ei gh te enm on th s. Th e d is tri ctco urt s ub se qu en tl y gra nt edth e
m ot io n t o wi th dr aw an d d en ie d Wil li am s’ m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l as
m oo t. W e d is cern no ab us e o f di sc ret io n h ere. Co nt rary to Will ia m s’ su gg es ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro vi de d Wil li am s wi th co un se l b utW il li am s re jecte d tho se at to rn ey s o f hi s o wn ac co rd . W il li am s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e ap po in te d h im

co un se l af

te r tr ia l b eg anbe cau se W il li am s wo re p ris on clo th es an d sh ack le s, h e was un sk il le d i n the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, an d a di sc ov ery vi ol at io n h adoc cu rred . As pr ev io us ly dis cu ss ed , th ou gh , W il li am s ne ve r ob jecte d dur in g tria l t o h is clo th in g o r res tra in ts , andth ere was no di sc ov ery 12vi ol at io n. As forhi s ab il ity to try his cas e, W il li am s t ol d h is ap po in te d a tt orne y s th athe be li ev edhe was “ be tt er p rep ared ” th anhi s at to rn ey s t o p res en t h is cas e to th e jury, R3-1 12 at Ex h. A, an d the re i s n o i nd ic at io n fr om th e tr ia l tran sc rip t tha t he was h am

pe redby his lac k o f le ga l s ki ll s. Giv enth athe vo lunt ari ly rejectedth e op po rtu ni ty to b e rep res en te d b y co un se l, the di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s b ro ad di sc ret io n i n d en y in g a s m oo t Will ia m s’ m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l. II I. CONCLUSI ON Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d, an d a fte r co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we AFFIRM the jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Offic ers Jo se ph Merc og li an o, St ev enBo wse r, an d J as on Grace o n Wil li am s’ § 1 98 3 e xc es si ve for ce cl ai m s. AFFIRMED.

13