1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

CASSANDRA STEEN, Individually, and as 

Personal Representative of the Estate of 

Victor Damarius Steen, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO. 3:11-CV-142/RV/CJK 

CITY OF PENSACOLA, a political subdivision of 

the State of Florida, JOHN W. MATHIS, in his 

individual capacity as Pensacola Police Department 

Chief, JERALD L. ARD, in his individual capacity 

as a Pensacola Police Officer, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________/ 

DEFENDANT JERALD ARD’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO 

COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Defendant Jerald Ard, in his individual capacity as a Pensacola Police 

Officer, by and through his undersigned attorney, and pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Count II of Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint. As grounds therefore, Defendant Ard would show: 

1. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint arises from the tragic circumstances leading 

to the death of Victor Demarius Steen on October 3, 2009, when he ignored a lawful order to 

stop, fled, and was ultimately struck and killed by a City of Pensacola marked police unit 

operated by Officer Jerald Ard. 

2. Count II of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is an action for excessive force. 

Plaintiff alleges that Officer Ard used a taser device on Mr. Steen, placing Mr. Steen at risk of 

death or serious personal injury. Doc. 18, ¶ 53. 

Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 68 Filed 08/26/11 Page 1 of 4
2

3. The factual background of this tragic and unfortunate incident is laid out in detail in 

the Court’s Order Granting Chief Mathis’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint (doc. 67). Officer Ard incorporates by reference the Court’s factual 

background as if fully set forth herein. 

4. Officer Ard is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity and is shielded from 

liability for civil damages as his conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 

U.S. 299, 305-06 (1996)(citation omitted). 

5. On August 22, 2011, this Court granted Chief Mathis’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 22) 

based on qualified immunity. While the Court cautioned that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] order 

should be read as to apply to any other claim that the plaintiff has alleged or any other alleged 

use of excessive force...” (doc. 67, fn 5), the Court’s analysis of Officer Ard’s actions is 

instructive on the issue of qualified immunity for Officer Ard related to the use of the taser. The 

Court dismissed Count III of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against Chief Mathis on the 

basis of qualified immunity, and the same reasoning and result applies here. 

6. As required by Local Rule 7.1, Defendant Ard incorporates herewith its

Memorandum of Law in support of the relief requested. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

In ruling on Chief Mathis’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court held that Chief Mathis’s 

supervisory liability was “necessarily dependent on there being an underlying Section 1983 

violation in the first instance.” Doc. 67, p. 11. Specifically, the Court held that Chief Mathis 

potential supervisory liability was dependent on “whether Officer Ard’s use of his taser on the 

facts of this case was a violation of Steen’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether the right was 

Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 68 Filed 08/26/11 Page 2 of 4
3

‘clearly established’ on October 3, 2009.” Id. After providing a thorough and well-reasoned 

analysis of this issue, the Court noted that it could not say that Ard’s “single use of a taser on the 

fleeing, albeit non-violent, Steen was an unconstitutional use of excessive force.” Id., p. 17. 

However, assuming arguendo that there was violation of a constitutional right, the Court held 

that any such right was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Id., pp. 23, 24. The 

Court held that there was no case law from the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh 

Circuit, or the Florida Supreme Court providing a bright line and holding that it is excessive 

force for a police officer in a vehicle to tase someone who is fleeing on a bicycle, nor was this a 

case of “obvious clarity.” Id., pp. 19, 23. 

This Court held that Chief Mathis is entitled to qualified immunity on the supervisory 

liability claim because the underlying Section 1983 claim fails. Id., pp. 11, 24; see also Mann v. 

Taser Int’l. Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009); Hicks v. Moore, 422 F.3d 1246, 1253 

(11th Cir. 2005). Based on the detailed analysis contained in the Court’s Order, it is an 

exceedingly short leap for the Court to now hold that Officer Ard is entitled to qualified 

immunity related to the use of the taser, and that Officer Ard is entitled to judgment in his favor 

on Count II of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Officer Ard requests that this Court enter judgment on the 

pleadings in his favor and against Plaintiff as to Count II of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint, and for such other relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 26, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing 

Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 68 Filed 08/26/11 Page 3 of 4
4

4347561 

to: Daniel Soloway, Esq., at dsoloway@bellsouth.net, Aaron L. Watson, Esq., at 

awatson@levinlaw.com, William Cash, Esq., bcash@levinlaw.com, and John W. Jolly, Esq., at 

jwj@jollylaw.com. 

/s/ Matthew J. Carson 

LEONARD J. DIETZEN 

Florida Bar No. 0840912 

MATTHEW J. CARSON 

Florida Bar No. 0827711 

RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL 

A Professional Association 

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 702 

Post Office Box 10507 

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2507 

Telephone: (850) 222-6550 

Telecopier: (850) 222-8783 

Email: mcarson@rumberger.com 

Attorney for Defendant Jerald Ard 

Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 68 Filed 08/26/11 Page 4 of 4