FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 18, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 07 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -0 01 14 -HGD JOHN WO ODRUFF, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us TRUSSVILLE, CITY OF, DON SIVLEY, ERIC ADAMS, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Jo hn W oo druf

f, pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s t he gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t in fav orof d efen da nt s o n Woo druf f’s 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 l aws ui t. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . W oo druf f rai se d c la im s o f un la wfu l arres t, ex ces si ve for ce, an d m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t ag ai ns t t he Cit y of Tru ss vi ll e, Alab am a an d t wo p ol ic e o ffi cers . He ba se d h is all eg at io ns onev en ts st emm in g 1 fro m a tr affi c st op . W oo druf

f al le ge d t ha t Do n S iv le y , Chi ef o f Po li ce fo r th e Ci ty, pu rs ue d h im

on th e in te rs ta te in anun m ark edsp ort u ti li ty veh ic le . W oo dr uf f tr ie d to di st an ce h im se lf f

ro m th e SUV by pas si ng m an y cars . Whe n Woo dr

uf f ex it ed th e in te rs ta te , Offic er Eri c Ada m s (wh o h adbe enco nt act edby Siv le y ab ou t W oo druf f’s dr iv in g) att em

pt edto pu ll W oo druf

f ov er. W oo druf

f ev en tu al ly st op pe d i n t he pa rk in g l otof am ov ie th eat er, wh ere h e was go in g t o m eeta fri en d. He al le ge d t ha t Ad am s p un ch edhi m in th e fac e, pu ll edhi m

fro m hi s ca r, th rew hi m to th e p av em en t, caus in g h im to st rik e h is he ad , andha nd cu ffedhi m witho ut te ll in g h im

th e n atur e o f th e ch arg es forwhi ch he was u nd er arres t. The off ic ers ch arg edW oo druf

f wit h m an y

tra ffi c v io la ti on s, i nc lu di ng

Woodruff also ra ised claims under state law. B ut on appea l, he aba ndons those claims. 1 2reck le ss dri vi ng , andwith d riv in g u nd er the in flu en ce (DUI). Be cau se of t he DUI

ch arg e, W oo druf

f was jail edfor

22 ho ur s i n t he m

un ic ip al jail . He als o s ub m it te d to a bl oo d t es t, wh ic h re ve al edno alc oh ol or d ru gs in hi s b lo od . The DUI ch arg e was di sm is se d; an d a fte r tr ia l i n m un ic ip al co urt an d alat er ap pe al in co un ty ci rcu itco urt, Woo druf

f was cle aredof a ll th e o th er ch arg es . The di stric t co urt, thr ou gh th e m ag is tra te jud ge , co nc lu de d t ha t t he off ic ers 2 were en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y on th e unl awfu l arres t an d m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cla im s b ecau se th e fac ts de m on st rat edth atth e o ffi cers ha d a rg uabl e pr ob ab le cau se to arre stW oo druf f fo r reck le ss dri vi ng . The co urt al so co nc lu de d th atAdam s was en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m be cau se , eve n c on st ru in g t he fact s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to W oo druf f, Ada m s us ed , at m os t, m in im al for ce. Bec au se W oo druf f ha d n otsh own a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, t he co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he Cit y co ul d n otbe li ab le . On ap pe al , W oo druf

f arg ue s t ha t t he off

ic ers lac ke d p ro babl e cau se to arre st hi m forDUI and , th us , th ey

were u ne nt it le d t o qua li fie d i m m un it y . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o; an d we v ie w th e ev id en ce an d al l re as on ab le factua l i nf

eren ces in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g

The pa rties conse nted in writingto proce ed bef ore a mag istrate judg e. 2 3pa rty. Sko p v . City of At lant a, 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 36 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). 3 To s ho w ent it le m en t t o qua li fie d i m m un ity , “ th e d efen dantgo ve rn m en t of fic ia l m us t p ro ve th athe was a ct in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s d is cret io na ry au th or it y when th e al le ge dl y

wron gf ul act s o ccu rred .” Jo rd anv. Do e, 38 F.3d 15 59 , 15 65 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Disc ret io nary au th or it y in cl ud es all act s o f a g ov ern m en ta l o ffi ci al th atwere (1 ) un de rta ke n p ur su an t t o th e p erfo rm an ce o f hi s dut ie s an d (2 ) wit hi n t he sco pe of h is auth or it y . Id. at 15 66 . Here, m ak in g t raff ic st op s an d a rres ts cle arl y fel l wi th in th e sc op e o f Si vl ey ’s andAdam s’s au th or it y as p ol ic e o ffi cers . The b ur de n t he n s hi fts to th e pl ai nt iff to sh ow t ha t (1 ) th e fac ts , as a ll eg edan d v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p la in ti ff, es tabl is h aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a nd(2) th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig htvi ol at edcle arl y was e st ab li sh ed . Id. at15 65 .

“ A warran tl es s arres t wi th ou t p ro babl e cau se vi ol at es th e Fo urth Am en dm en t an d fo rm s a b as is fora se ct io n 1 98 3 c la im .” Orte gav. Ch ris ti an , 85 F.3 d 1 52 1, 1 52 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) . Butev enif a n o ffi cer l ack edactua l p ro babl e cau se to arre sta pe rs on , he s ti ll canbe en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un ity if h e h ad arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se : “ th atis , whet he r rea so nabl e o ffi cers inth e sa m e

In addition, we construe liberally pro se plea dings. Ta

nnenbaum v. United States, 148 3 F.3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 4ci rcu m st an ces an d p os se ss in g t he same kn owl ed ge as t he Defen da nt [] co uld ha ve

be li eved th atpro babl e cau se ex is te d t o arres t.” S ko p, 4 85 F.3dat 1 13 7 (c it at io n an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d) (em ph as is in ori gi na l). To de te rm in e whe th er arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is ts , cou rts m us t l oo k a t t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Davi s v . W il li am s, 4 51 F.3d75 9, 7 63 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). Here, the un di sp ut edfact s s ho w th at(1) in Siv le y ’s pre se nc e, W oo druf f sp ed , tai lg at edot he r dr iv ers , fla sh edhi s h ead li gh ts at t he m to ge t t he m

to m ov e, an d d idno t u se hi s s ig na l ev ery ti m e h e p as se d o th er ca rs , all inaneffo rt t o di st an ce h im se lf f

ro m th e SUV he th ou gh t was fol lo win g h im ; (2 ) aft er Woo druf f ex it edth e in te rs ta te , Adam s o bs erv edW oo druf f op erat e h is ve hi cl e invi ol at io n o f tra ffi c la ws, i nc lu di ng m ak in g i m pr op er l an e ch an ge s; an d (3 ) W oo druf f fai le d t o pu ll ov er i m

m ed ia te ly whe n Ad am s turne d o n t he li gh ts of h is po li ce ca r an d, in st ead , pu ll edaro un d a no th er car in fro ntof h im th atha d s to pp ed . Reas on ab le of fic ers with t hi s kno wled ge co ul d h av e b el ie ve d t ha t Woo druf f dr ov e rec kl es sl y ; so Siv le y an d Ad am s h adarg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stW oo druf f fo r rec kl es s dr iv in g. Se e Ala . Cod e § 32 -5 A-1 90 (a); W oo d v . Kesl er, 3 23 F.3d87 2, 8 79 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata pe rs on m ay be gu il ty of reck le ss dri vi ng by “ dr iv in g ne gl ig en tl y

an d a t a s pe edor i n am an ne r li ke ly to en da ng er an y pe rs onor pr op erty ”). 5W oo druf f fo cu se s h is arg um en ts on th e DUI ch arg e, m ai nt ai ni ng th atth e of fic ers fab ric at edth is ch arg e to co ve r up th ei r un co ns ti tu ti on al act s. Bu t an of fic er’s “ subjec ti ve reas on form ak in g t he arre stne edno t b e th e cri m in al off en se as to whi ch th e kno wn fa ct s p ro vi de pro babl e cau se .” Deve np eckv. Al fo rd , 12 5 S.Ct . 58 8, 5 94 (20 04 ). ThatSiv le y an d Ad am s h adarg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stW oo druf

f fo r an y off en se en ti tl edth em

to qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Durru th y

v. Pas to r, 35 1 F .3d10 80 , 10 90 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Andwhi le W oo druf f arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t co ns id eri ng th e o ffi cers ’ in te ntin gra nt in g su m m ary jud gm en t, the qu al ifi edimm un it y an al y si s fo cu se s o n t he go ve rn m en t of fic ia l’s “ ob

jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss , reg ard le ss of h is un de rlyin g i nt en t o r m ot iv at io n.” Ru sh in g v . Park er, 5 99 F.3d12 63 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). 4 W e al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d c orrect ly tha t Ad am s d id no t u se ex ces si ve for ce i n a rres ti ng W oo dr uf f. “ [T]he ap pl ic at io n o f de m in im is fo rce, wi th ou t m or e, wil l n otsupp ort” anex ces si ve for ce cl ai m an d wi ll no t d efea t anoff ic er’s qua li fie d i m

m un it y . Nol in v. Is be ll , 20 7 F .3d12 53 , 12 57 -5 8 (1 1t h Woodruff complains that the district cour t improperly

used the Ritalin pills that Adams 4 discovere d in Woodruff’s ca r as a justification for proba

ble ca use for the DUI charg e and that the court fa iled to consider the a ffidavit of Christy Wil kins (who was w aiting f or Woodruff in the theater parkinglot when the eve nts took place) that conflicted w ith the office rs’ a ccount of events a bout what occ urre d in the parking lot. But these issues do not bea r on the district cour

t’s deter mination that the office rs had a rguable pr obable c ause to a rre st W oodruff

for r eckle ss drivingbased on c onduct that occ urre d befor e the discove ry of the Ritalin and the conf rontation in the parkinglot. 6Ci r. 20 00 ). The k in d o f fo rce a ll eg edby W oo dr uf f -- i nc lu di ng Adam s p un ch in g W oo druf f in th e fac e, fo rcef

ul ly rem ov in g h im

fro m hi s ca r, an d s la m

m in g h im on th e g ro un d -- ev enwhenco ns tru edin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to W oo druf f, co ns ti tu te d o nl y

de m in im is for ce. Id . at 1 25 8 (c on cl ud in g tha t o nl y de m in im is fo rce was us edwhen off

ic er g rab be d t he pl ai nt iff , sh ov edhi m

a few fee t ag ai ns t a ve hi cl e, pu sh edhi s kne e in to pl ai nt iff’s bac k, p us he d p la in ti ff’s h eadag ai ns t the va n, s earc he d p la in ti ff’s g ro in areain anun co m fo rtabl e m an ne r, an d p la ced pl ai nt iff in ha nd cu ffs , all res ul ti ng in on ly min or bru is in g) . W oo druf f ch arac te riz es hi s arres t an d l at er cr im in al pro ceed in gs as a

“ co nt in ui ng sei zure” am ou nt in g t o m al ic io us pro se cu ti on be cau se he ha d t o m ak e co urt ap pe aran ces an d was pre ve nt edfro m lea vi ng th e st at e. Bu t, as th e d is tri ct co urt n ot ed , W oo druf

f’s arre stwas s up po rte d b y arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ; an d a

“pl ai nt iff’s arres t ca nn otserve as t he pre di cat e d ep riv at io n o f li be rty becaus e it oc cu r[s ] pr io r to th e ti m e o f arra ig nm en t.” Ki ng sl an d v . Cit y of M ia m i, 3 82 F.3d 12 20 , 12 33 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Mor eo ve r, th e n orm al co nd it io ns of p retria l re le as e do no t co ns ti tu te a “ co nt in ui ng sei zu re” u nl es s the re i s s om e “ si gn ifi can t, o ng oi ng de pr iv at io n o f li be rty, suc h a s a r es tri ct io n o n t he [pl ai nt iff’s] rig htto tra ve l in te rs ta te .” Id . at 1 23 6. Woo druf f sa y s t ha t h e co ul d n otlea ve th e st at e b ecau se of th e co nd it io ns of h is pre tri al rel eas e; bu t thi s s ta te m en t p la in ly is b el ie d b y th e 7reco rd . The Ci ty’ s m an da to ry co nd it io ns of r el eas e st at edth atW oo dr uf f co ul d n ot le av e th e st at e wit ho utth e co urt’s p erm is si on . AndW oo druf f co nc ed es th athe ne ve r as ke d t he co urt fo r pe rm is si on to lea ve th e st at e. W e co nc lu de th atno co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o ccurred ; an d S iv le y an d Ada m s wer e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es . Becau se Si vl ey an d Ad am s co m

m it te d n o c on st itut io na l v io la ti on , W oo druf f can no t s ho w a ba si s o n wh ic h t o e st ab li sh m un ic ip al li ab il it y

ag ai ns t t he Cit y . See Ro on ey v. W at so n, 1 01 F.3d13 78 , 13 81 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). AFFIR MED.

8