Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STEPHEN PAUL SEARCY

inmate# 9601103427, 

 Plaintiff,

vs. 3:10cv113/LAC/MD

DEPUTY PEARSON #380, and

DEPUTY FLANIGAN #260

 Defendants.

O R D E R

Plaintiff has submitted his partial initial filing fee, and this cause is before the court

upon plaintiff’s civil rights complaint filed pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff sues

Deputies Pearson and Flanigan of the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, claiming that they 

used excessive force against him in effectuating his arrest. Plaintiff’s allegations are

insufficient to determine whether he states a viable claim for relief.

Claims involving allegations of excessive use of force in making an arrest arise

under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865,

1871, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85

L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Determining whether the amount of force used was reasonable requires

a balancing of the government interests at stake with the intrusion on the individual’s

interests. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. at 1871. Factors to be considered include

the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the

safety of the officers and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade

arrest by flight. Id. 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. at 1872 (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471

U.S. at 8-9, 105 S.Ct. at 1699-1700). Reasonableness of a use of force should not be
Page 2 of 3

judged with 20/20 hindsight vision, but rather from the perspective of a “reasonable” officer

at the scene. Id. (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-1881, 20

L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact

that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments–in circumstances that

are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in

a particular situation.” Id., 490 U.S. at 396-97, 109 S.Ct. at 1872. And, the dispositive

question is whether the law enforcement officer’s actions are “objectively reasonable.” Id.

 Several factors are instructive in determining whether an officer's use of force was

objectively reasonable, including “(1) the need for the application of force, (2) the

relationship between the need and the amount of force used, (3) the extent of the injury

inflicted and, (4) whether the force was applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically.”

 Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Slicker v. Jackson, 215

F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff’s complaint offers no information about the

circumstances of his arrest which might provide insight on the officers’ perception of the

need for the application of force, or on the officers’ state of mind in applying the force. The

gratuitous use of force when a criminal suspect is not resisting arrest constitutes excessive

force, Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1330, but it is not apparent from the plaintiff’s allegations

whether he was resisting arrest or otherwise acting in such a way that reasonable officers

might have perceived force to be necessary at the time. 

Therefore, plaintiff will be required to amend his complaint to provide more detail

about the events on the date in question. In the statement of facts, he should set forth facts

sufficient to state a constitutional violation, as explained herein. Additionally, in the portion

of the complaint for Statement of Claims, he should note that his claim arises under the

Fourth Amendment.

In amending, plaintiff should carefully review the foregoing to determine what is

necessary to state a cause of action under the relevant law. If plaintiff chooses to file an

amended complaint, he must completely fill out a new civil rights complaint form, that has

been marked “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must

Case No: 3:10cv113/LAC/MD
Page 3 of 3

contain all of his allegations because once an amended complaint is filed, all earlier

complaints and filings are disregarded. Local Rule 15.1, Northern District of Florida. 

Plaintiff should file the amended complaint with an original signature with the Court

and keep an identical copy for himself. Plaintiff should not file a memorandum of law or

otherwise provide citations to statutes and cases, and he should not file exhibits as

evidentiary support for his complaint. The court will notify plaintiff when memoranda and

exhibits are necessary, such as prior to trial or in conjunction with a motion for summary

judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff should not submit service copies of his complaint unless

and until the court directs him to do so. Finally, plaintiff is advised that discovery is

premature at this stage of the case and plaintiff should not do any discovery without leave

of court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk of court is directed to forward to the plaintiff a civil rights complaint form

for use in actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This case number and the words “Amended

Complaint” should be written on the form. 

2. The plaintiff shall have twenty-eight (28) days in which to file an amended civil

rights complaint, which shall be typed or clearly written and submitted on court forms.

 3. Failure to submit an amended complaint as instructed will result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2010.

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv113/LAC/MD