FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 2 , 201 0 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 9- 11 96 2
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 14 27 6- CV-DLG ANTONIA FLORES HERNAN DEZ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHE RIFF KEN J. MASCARA, as an in di vi du al an d i n h is off ic ia l capa ci ty as Sh eri ff o f St . Luci e Co un ty, SHAW N MASTERS, St . Luci e Co un ty D ep ut y

Sh eri ff, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt s- App el le es .
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (Ma rch 2, 2 01 0)Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, KRAVITCH, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d EDENFIELD, *

Dis tri ctJu dg e. PER CURI AM: Thi s i s an ap pe al in a §1 98 3 e xc es si ve for ce ca se bro ug htby App el la nt Ant on iaFlo res Hern an de z ag ai ns t Ap pe ll ee Sh awn Mas te rs , a Depu ty Sheri ff i n St . Luci e Co un ty, Fl or id a, in hi s i nd iv idua l capa ci ty. Afte r a jury fou ndin Depu ty Mas te rs ’s fav or , Hern an de z ap pe al ed , arg ui ng th atElev en th Cir cu itPat te rn Ju ry In st ru ct io n 2 .2, wh ic h t he di st ric t co ur t u se d i n i ns tru ct in g t he jury on he r
ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m

pu rs ua ntto th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, n o l on ge r acc ur at el y refl ect s t he law, af

te r th e Supr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on in Gra ha m v. Con no r , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 1 09 S. Ct. 1 86 5 (1 98 9)
. W e rev ie w jury

in st ru ct io ns de no vo to de te rm in e whe th er t he y m is st at e th e la w or m is le adth e jury to t he pre jud ic e o f th e o bjec ti ng pa rty. Palmer v. Bd. o f Reg en ts of

th e Uni v. Sys. o

f Geo rg ia , 20 8 F .3d96 9, 9 73 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). App el la ntHern an de z arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t erredin us in g El ev en th Ci rcu itPat te rn Ju ry

Ins tru ct io n 2 .2 b ecau se itha s b eensupe rced edby the Supr em e Co ur t’s h ol di ng in Gra ha m v. Con no r , 49 0 U.S. at39 7, 1 09 S. Ct. at18 72 . In Gra ha m , th e d is tri ctco urt h adgra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt , on th e

Honora ble B. Avant Edenfie ld, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. 2gr ou ndth atth e p ol ic e o ffi cers ha d n otact edm al ic io us ly or sa di st ic al ly for t he

pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm , andth e Fo ur th Cir cu itaffi rm ed
. Id

. at39 0- 91 , 10 9 S
. Ct . at 1 86 9. Th e Supr em e Co ur t re ve rs ed , ho ld in g t ha t a § 19 83 cla im for
ex ces si ve for ce s ho ul d b e an al y zedun de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s “ ob jecti ve
reas on ab le ne ss ” st an da rd , rat he r th an un de r a s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s s ta nd ard
. Id

. at39 3- 94 , 10 9 S . Ct. at18 70 -7 1. Th e Co urt s ta te d t ha t t he “ reas on ab le ne ss ” o f a p art ic ul ar u se of f

or ce “ m us t b e jud ge d fr om

th e p ers pe ct iv e o f a rea so nabl e of fic er o n t he sce ne , rat he r th an wit h t he 20 -2 0 v is io n o f hi nd si gh t.” Id

. at39 6, 10 9 S . Ct. at18 72 . The Co urt h el d t ha t t he subjec ti ve in te ntor m ot iv at io n o f an of fic er d oe s n otaffe ctth e ex is te nc e o f a Fo ur th Am en dm en t v io la ti on . Id

. at39 7, 10 9 S . Ct. at18 72 (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ [a]n o ffi cer’s ev il in te nt io ns wil l n otm ak e a Fo ur th Am en dm en t v io la ti on ou t o f an ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e u se of f or ce; no r wil l an off

ic er’s g oo d i nt en ti on s m ak e an ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le us e o f fo rce
co ns ti tu ti on al ”). In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , th e Co ur t re jecte d t he fou rth pa rt o f a fo ur -p arttes t tha t m an y co ur ts of app eal , in cl ud in g t hi s co ur t, h adus edin
an al y zi ng ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s. Th atpa rt wa s t he co ns id erat io n o f whe th er t he of fic er ac te d i n g oo d fa it h a s o pp os edto m al ic io us ly or sa di st ic al ly. Se e id

. Thu s Herna nd ez’s arg um en t i s t ha t In st ru ct io n 2 .2 s ti ll refl ect s the law as it
was be fo re Gra ha m v. Con no r – th atto fin d fo r th e p la in ti ff t he jury m us t fi ndth at
3th e d efen da ntsubjec ti ve ly int en de d t o v io la te th e p la in ti ff’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.

Sh e co nt en ds th atun de r th e d is tri ctco ur t’s i ns tru ct io ns to th e jury, the jury co ul d ha ve be li ev edHern an de z’s ve rs io n o f th e ev en ts th attra ns pi red , andy etrul edfor Dep ut y Mas te rs on th e g ro un d t ha t h e was no t s ho wn t o h av e su bjec ti ve ly in te nd edto vi ol at e h er Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts
. Whe n we r ev ie w Ins tru ct io n 2 .2 as a who le , alo ng wit h t he jury ve rd ic t fo rm , we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco ur t’s i ns tru ct io n d idno t p ro pe rly
ex pr es s t he law ap pl ic ab le to th is cas e. Nowh ere i n t he in st ru ct io n i s t he jury
ex pl ic it ly adv is edth atHern an de z h adto pro ve a su bjec ti ve co m po ne ntof De pu ty Mas te rs ’s in te nt io ns , su chas m al ic e. In de ed , th e wor d “ su bjec ti ve ” is no t i n t he in st ru ct io n. In st ead , th e g reatweig htof t he in st ru ct io n fo cu se s o n t he m ere req ui rem en t t ha t M as te rs ha d t o u se for ce b y m ean s i nt en ti on al ly app li ed , in st ead of as t he res ul t o f an acci de nt . Spe ci fic al ly, th e jury was in st ru ct edth atitm us t de ci de what for ce a “ reas on ab le an d p ru de ntlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer wo ul d h av e ap pl ie d i n d et ai ni ng th e p la in ti ff u nd er t he cir cu m st an ces di sc lo se d i n t hi s ca se ,” whi chacco rd s wi th th e Supr em e Co ur t’s h ol di ng in Gra ha m th ata

“ reas on ab le ne ss ” st an da rdap pl ie s. 4 90 U.S. at 3 97 , 10 9 S . Ct. at18 72 . Becau se

4we co nc lu de th atIns tru ct io n 2 .2, v ie wedin it s en ti ret y , is no t i n c on fli ctwit h t he 1 Supr em e Co ur t’s h ol di ng in Gra ha m v. Con ne r , we affi rm th e jud gm en t en te redon th e jury’ s v erd ic t. AFFIRMED.

We must consider the jury instructions as a whole. Palmer , 208 F.3d at 973. No reve rsible 1 err or occ urs as longas the instructions ac curately state the law , “eve n if an isolated c lause may be inacc urate , ambiguous, incomplete, or otherwise subject to criticism.” W atkins v. Bowden , 105 F.3d 1344, 1356 (11th Cir. 1997). We conclude that Instruction 2.2, viewed in its en t irety , did not mislead the jury in this case . Howeve r, as counsel for Deputy Masters noted during oral argument, the Commi ttee on Pattern J ury Instructions of the J udicial Council of th e E l ev en t h Circuit could improve upon sever al isolated clause s in Instruction 2.2 so that the instruction more clea rly ref lects the holding in Graham v. Connor
. For instance, the Commi ttee could add the phrase “without reg ard to the office r’s underlying intent or motivation” to the end of the following instruction: “You must decide whether the forc e used in de taining the plaintiff was excessive or unrea sonable on the basis of that degree of for ce, that a reasonable and prudent law enforce ment office r would have applied in detaining the plaintiff under the circ u m s t an ce s disclosed in this case .” Additionally , the Commi ttee could modify the instances wher e the jury is instructed that it must find that the defe ndant “int en tionally deprive d” the plaintiff of her constitutional rig hts and “intentionally violated” the p l ai n t iff’s constitutional rig hts, so that the jury is instructed that it must find that the defe ndant “intentionally

committed acts that violated” the plaintiff’s c onstitut ional rig hts. 5