F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Dece mb er 18, 2008 THO MAS K . K AHN CLERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 53 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 6- 02 17 6 C V-T-2 7- MSS

ADOLFO GAL VEZ,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
HENRY BRUCE, a Hil ls bo ro ug h C ou nt y Sh eri ff’s Offi cer i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m ber 1 8, 2 00 8)

Befo re ANDERSON, BARKETT and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
COX, Cir cu it Ju dg e:

Pl ai nt iff Ado lfo Galv ez ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t

to Defen da nt Hen ry Bru ce, a Hil ls bo ro ug h Co u n t y Sh eri ff’s Dep ut y

. Galv ez su edBru ce pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , al le gi ng th at Bru ce us ed ex ces si ve fo rce whi le

pu tt in g G a l v e z un de r arre st , in vi ol at io n of Galv ez’s Fo ur th an d Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t fo u n d t h a t B ru ce is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

. Bec au se we fin d th at , un de r Galv ez’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, Bru ce is no t

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , we vac at e th e su m

m ary jud gm en t an d re m an d t o t he

di st ric t co ur t.

I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND

We r e c i t e th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Pl ai nt iff

. Se e Vin ya r d v

.
W il so n , 31 1 F.3 d 13 40 , 13 43 n.1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ) ( ci ti ng Gra ha m v. St at e Far m Mut

.
In s. Co

. , 19 3 F.3 d 12 74 , 12 82 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 )). As in Vin ya rd , th e Defen da nt in th is

cas e di sp ut es m

uc h of th e Pl ai nt iff ’s v ers io n of ev en ts , i nc lu di ng G a l v e z ’s acco un t

of hi s o wn n on res is ta nc e an d t he lev el of f or ce u se d b y

Bru ce.

Galv ez is a m ed ic al do ct or who op erat ed a walk -in cl in ic in Bran do n, Fl or id a.

On Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 04 , Bru ce was di sp at ch ed to Galv ez’s c l i n i c

. Galv ez an d hi s

wi f e w e r e i n v o l v ed in a di sp ut e wit h a te en ag e gi rl who ha d pu ll ed he r car in to th e

pa rk in g l ot of t he cl in ic be cau se th e car was ov erh eat in g. W he n th e te en ag er as ke d

th e Gal ve zes if s he co ul d u se th e cl in ic ’s water sp ig ot to fil l h er ca r’s rad ia to r, th ey

as ke d th at th e te en ag er gi ve Mrs

. Galv ez he r dr iv er’s li cen se

. The Galv ezes wis he d

to co py th e li cen se in cas e th e car was no t rem ov ed fro m th e pr em is es in a ti m el y

2m an ne r. A di sp ut e b et ween th e Gal ve zes an d t he tee na ge r aro se whe n t he tee na ge r

so ug ht ret ur n o f he r li cen se an d t he Galv ezes refu se d.

W he n Bru ce arri ve d, he en te red th e cl in ic an d sp ok e to th e Galv ezes , who were

st il l in po ss es si on of th e te en ag er’s dr iv er’s li cen se

. Bru ce at te m pt ed to ret rie ve th e

dr iv er’s li cen se bu t ha d di ffi cu lt y do in g so

. Acco rd in g t o G a l v e z , whe n Bru ce’s

“ lo ud , au th or it at iv e” req ue st s fo r th e li cen se were no t met w i th co m pl ia nc e, Bru ce

gr ab be d Galv ez ’s r i g h t ha nd in an effo rt to ha nd cu ff hi m

. (R.1 -1 6, Ex. H at 3, 4.)

Galv ez ad m it s to res is ti ng Bru ce, ex pl ai ni ng th at he was st ru gg li ng ag ai ns t th e of fic er

in an at te m

pt to ret rie ve th e dr iv er’s li cen se fo r Bru ce fro m th e to p of a pr in te r. ( Id

.

at 4; App el la nt ’s Br. at 42 .) Dur in g th is st ru gg le , Bru ce co nt in ue d to try to ha nd cu ff

hi m

. (R.1 -1 6, Ex. H a t 4.) Bru ce th en pu sh ed Galv ez away fro m th e pr in te r an d

gr ab b e d t he li cen se hi m se lf an d, whe n Bru ce di d so , he al so gr ab be d co nf id en ti al

pa ti en t reco rd s. (

Id

. ) In an at te m

pt t o p r o t e c t th e co nf

id en ti al it y of th es e pa ti en t

reco rd s, Galv ez gr ab be d th e li cen se an d reco rd s b a c k f r o m Bru ce an d

3“ un co ns ci ou sl y ” pu t o n l y t h e li cen se in hi s pa nt s po ck et , u nd er hi s la b co at

. ( Id

. ) 1

Bru ce was th en su cces sf

ul in ha nd cu ffi ng Galv ez. ( Id

. )

Und er Galv ez’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, aft er he was ha nd cu ff e d , h e co op erat ed

wit h Bru ce an d of

fere d no ph y si cal res is ta nc e. (R.1 -1 6, Ex. J at 36 5.) Galv ez cl ai m s

th at , as Bru ce was rem ov in g hi m fro m th e cl in ic , Galv ez was “ sa y in g [‘] why are y ou

do in g th is to m e,

. . . whe re are y ou go in g to ta ke m e,

. . . why are y ou

. . . ge tt in g m e

hu m il ia te d in fro nt of th es e pa ss in g m ot or is ts who y ou ne ve r kn ow th at so m e of th em

are m y fri en ds an d m

y pa ti en ts

. . . [? ’] ” an d he in fo rm ed Bru ce th at he kn ew Bru ce’s

ch ie f. ( Id

. at 36 4- 65 , 36 6.)

In Galv ez’s wor ds , Bru ce “ fo rcef ul ly dr ag ge d m e ou t of th e cl in ic , an d wit h al l

h i s p o w er an d m ig ht be ga n sl am m in g th e le ft si de of m y ch es t in to th e co rn er ed ge

of t h e carp or t

. . . . [Bru ce] sl am m ed m e in to th e ed ge so ha rd th at m y bo dy was
pi nn ed be twee n [ B r u c e ’s ] m us cu la r st at ur e an d th e co nc ret e wall whi le [Bru ce’s]

th ig hs pi nn ed m

y kn ees to th e lo wer po rti on of th e ca rp or t. [Bru ce] sl am m ed m y

ch es t se ve ral ti m es whi le I cri ed ou t in pa in an d as ke d fo r he lp f r o m pa ss in g

Her e, Gal v ez ’s t est imony seems incre dible. On summary judgme nt, office r Br uce provided no 1 testimony as to his version of the events. And, whether Galvez intentionally put the license in his pocket does not chang e the re s u l t o n t his appea l. There fore , we do not consider whether this testimony of Galvez’s is so inhere ntly incre dible that it c an be disreg arde d in the curr ent summary judgme nt posture. See 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane , Fede ral Practice and Procedure § 2727 (3d ed. 2008) (Unde r Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 56, “the court may disreg ard a

n offe r of e vidence that is too incredible to be be lieved.”)

4m ot or is ts .” (R.1 -1 6, Ex. H at 4.) Galv ez cl ai m s th at , in res po ns e to be in g sl am m ed 2

ag ai ns t th e wall by Bru ce, he sc ream ed fo r Bru ce to st op hu rti ng hi m an d sh ou te d to

pa ss in g m ot or is ts to cal l at te nt io n to wha t he co ns id ered po li ce br ut al it y

. (R.1 -1 6, Ex.

J at 36 5- 67 .) W hi le Bru ce an d Galv ez were ou ts id e th e cl in ic , Bru ce em pt ie d

Galv ez’s p oc ke ts an d re tri ev ed th e d riv er’s l ic en se . (R.1-1 6, Ex . H at 5 .)

Bru ce ch arg ed Galv ez wit h pe ti t th eft of th e dr iv er’s li cen se an d res is ti ng arre st

wit ho ut vi ol en ce, b ot h m is de m ean or s. Th e ch arg es were u lt im at el y dro pp ed

.
Galv ez cl ai m s th at , as a res ul t of th e ex ces si ve fo rce by Bru ce, Galv ez su ffer ed

si gn ifi can t ps y c ho lo gi cal an d ph y si cal in juri es , in cl ud in g two frac tu red rib s an d a

le ak in g a ne ur y sm

.
II . PROCEDURAL HIS TORY

Galv ez su ed Bru ce, in a on e-co un t co m pl ai nt , al le gi n g t ha t Bru ce is li ab le ,

pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , fo r vi ol at io n of Galv ez’s F o u r t h an d Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t rig ht s to be free fro m ex ces s i v e f o r c e by st at e of

fic ers

. (R.1 -7 .)

Si gn ifi can t di sc ov ery was ta k e n

. B r u ce fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t th at

Galv ez op po se d. The di st ric t co u r t g r a n te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Bru ce on th e

This pushing or slamming of Galvez into the concr ete wall outside the clinic is the sole fac tual basis 2 for Galvez’s excessive forc e claim. Whil e Galvez contends that Br uce w as roug h with him ins ide the clinic, he doe s not contend that the for ce B ruce used there was tortious. (R.1-24 at 6 n.2.)

5gr ou nd th at he is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. (R.1 -2 5 at 18 .) Galv ez ap pe al s th at

su m m ary jud gm en t.

II I. STANDARD OF REVIE W

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of s u mm ary jud gm en t de no vo ,

ap pl y in g th e sa m e le ga l st an da rd s us ed by th e di st ric t c o u r t

. S ee, e.g

. , Hil bu rn v.

Mur at a Elec s. N. Am., In c. , 18 1 F.3 d 12 20 , 12 25 (1 1t h Ci r

. 19 99 ). “ Su m m ary
jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe re ‘ th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al fact an d

th e m ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to a ju d g men t as a m at te r of la w.’ ” W oo de n v. Bd. of
Reg en ts of th e Uni v. Sy s. of Ga. , 24 7 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 71 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) ( qu ot in g Fed

.
R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c)).

“ [W] e ‘m us t vi ew th e m ov an t’s ev id en ce an d al l fact ua l in fere nc es ari si ng fr om

it in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n o n mo v i n g pa rty.’ ” Ja cks on v. Bell So ut h

Tel eco mm. , 37 2 F.3 d 12 50 , 12 80 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot in g All en v. Tys on Foo ds

, In c. ,
12 1 F.3 d 64 2, 64 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 )). “ ‘A ll reas on ab le do ub ts ab ou t th e fact s sh ou ld

be res ol ve d in fav or of th e no n- m ov an t.’” Id

. ( qu ot in g Bur to n v. Ci ty of Bell e Gla de ,
17 8 F.3 d 11 75 , 11 87 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ); Cl emo ns v. Dou gh er ty Co un ty , 68 4 F.2 d 13 65 ,
13 68 -6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

6IV. I SSUE O N APPEAL

The so le is su e on ap pe al is whe th er Dep ut y Bru ce is e n ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y for th e act s o f fo rce t ha t Gal ve z co nt en ds were ex ces si ve

.

V. DISCUSSI ON
Qua li fie d im m

un it y sh ie ld s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls fro m li ab il it y whe n th ey are

p e r f or m in g di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on s an d th ei r act io ns “ ‘[do ] no t vi ol at e cl ear l y

es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu tiona l rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve

kn own .’ ” Besh er

s v. Har ri so n , 49 5 F.3 d 1 26 0, 12 65 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) ( qu ot in g

Har lo w v. Fit

zg er al d , 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8, 10 2 S. Ct

. 27 27 , 27 38 (1 98 2) ). It “ ‘allo w[s]

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia ls t o carr y ou t th ei r di sc ret io na ry du ti es wit ho ut th e fear of

pe rs on al li ab il it y or h a r a ss in g li ti ga ti on , pr ot ect in g fro m su it al l bu t th e pl ai nl y

in co m pe te nt or on e who is kn owi ng ly v io la ti ng th e fed eral la w.’ ” I d

. ( qu ot in g Lee

v

. Ferr ar o , 28 4 F.3 d 11 88 , 11 94 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 )). “ Qua li fie d im m un it y is ‘an

im m un it y fro m su it rat he r th an a m ere de fen se to li ab il it y

. . . .’ ” Sc ot t v. Har ri s , 55 0

U.S. 37 2,

__

_ n.2 , 12 7 S. Ct

. 17 69 , 17 73 n.2 (2 00 7) ( qu ot in g Mit ch el l v. For sy th , 47 2

U.S. 51 1, 5 26 , 10 5 S . Ct. 2 80 6, 2 81 5 (1 98 5) (em ph as is om it te d) ).

The di st ric t co ur t an al y zed Bru ce’s qu al ifi ed im m un it y de fen se by fir st

res ol vi ng whe th er Bru ce was act in g wit hi n hi s di sc ret io na ry po wers whe n arres ti ng

Galv ez; th en by an al y zi ng whe th er th e fact s, as pr es en te d by Galv ez, co ul d es ta bl is h

7a co ns ti tu ti on al vi o l a ti on ; th en by as ki ng whe th er th e la w, at th e ti m e of th e arre st ,

cl earl y es ta bl is he d Galv ez’s rig ht to be free fro m th e tre at m en t h e a l le ge s. In

pe rfo rm in g th is th ree- st ep an al y si s, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at Bru ce was act in g

wit hi n hi s di sc ret io na ry po wers whe n he arre st ed Galv ez. (R.1 -2 5 at 7.) It al so fo un d

th at th ere are di sp ut ed is su es of m at eri al fact as to whe th er ex ces si ve fo rce was us ed
by Bruc e b ecau se th e pa rti es pr es en te d con fli ct in g evi de nc e as to whe th er t he for ce

us ed by Bruce was reas on ab ly pr op or ti on at e to Bru ce’s need to se cu re Galv ez. ( Id

.

at 13 .) The refo re, th e di st ric t co u r t he ld th at th e qu es ti on of “ ‘w he th er ex ces si ve

fo rce was us ed

. . . is an is su e of fact fo r th e jury to res ol ve .’ ” ( Id

. ) ( qu ot in g

Vela zq ue z v. Ci ty of Hia le ah , 48 4 F.3 d 13 40 , 13 42 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 )). Nev ert he le ss ,
th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m a r y ju dg m en t to Bru ce be cau se it he ld th at , ev en if

ex ces si ve fo rce ha d be en us ed an d Galv ez’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s had be en vi ol at ed ,
th e la w at th e ti m e of Galv ez’s arre st “ di d no t pr ov id e ‘fair a n d c l ear no ti ce’ th at

Bru ce’s co nd uc t was un la wfu l so th at th e vi ol at io n wou ld be ‘app aren t.’” ( Id

. at 17 .)
( qu ot in g Hop e v. Pel

ze r , 53 6 U.S. 7 30 , 73 9, 12 2 S. Ct

. 25 08 , 25 15 (20 02 ); Vin ya rd

v. W il so n , 31 1 F .3d 13 40 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 02 )).

The pa rti es do no t di sp ut e th at Bru ce was act in g i n t h e s co pe of hi s

di sc ret io na ry po wers whe n he arre st ed Galv ez. (Ap pe ll an t’s Br. at 29 .) On c e i t is

es ta bl is he d th at a de fen da nt was act in g wit hi n hi s di sc ret io na ry au th or it y , “ th e bu rd en

8sh ift s to th e pl ai nt iff to sh ow t ha t q ua li fie d im m un it y is no t ap pr op ria te .” Lee , 2 84

F.3 d at 11 94 ( ci ti ng Co ur so n v. McMil li an , 93 9 F.2d 14 79 , 14 87 (1 1t h Cir. 19 91 )).

In th e se co nd st ep of th e qu al ifi ed im m un i t y an al y si s, a co ur t m us t res ol ve th e

qu es ti on of

whet he r a p la in ti ff h as all eg ed a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. The Su pr em e

Co ur t has in st ru ct ed th at co ur ts sh ou ld no t p ro ceed to th e th ird st ep of th e qu al ifi ed

im m un it y in qu iry – whe th er th e la w at th e ti m e of th e ev en ts cl earl y es ta bl is he d su ch

a v i o l a t i o n – un le ss th ey fin d th at , un de r th e pl ai nt iff ’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. In Sc ot t v. Har ri s , t he Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed , “ In

res ol vi ng qu es ti on s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , co ur ts are req ui red to res ol ve a ‘thre sh ol d

qu es ti on : Tak en in th e li gh t m os t fa v o r a b l e to th e pa rty as se rti ng th e in jury, do th e

fact s al le ge d sh ow t h e o f f i cer’s co nd uc t vi ol at ed a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ? ’” 55 0 U.S.

37 2,

__ _, 12 7 S. Ct

. 17 69 , 17 74 ( qu ot in g Sa uc ie r v. Ka tz , 53 3 U.S. 19 4, 20 1, 12 1 S.

Ct

. 21 51 , 21 56 (2 00 1) ). “ If, an d on ly if, th e co ur t fin ds a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht , ‘the ne xt , se qu en ti al st ep is to as k whet he r th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d

. .

. in li gh t of th e sp eci fic co nt ex t of th e cas e.’” Id

. ( qu ot in g Sa uc ie r , 53 3 U.S. at 20 1,

12 1 S . Ct. at 21 56 ).

W e co ns id er de no vo whe th er, un de r G a l v e z ’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce were vi ol a t e d

. “‘The Fo ur th

Am en dm en t’s free d o m f ro m un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es en co m pa ss es th e

9pl ai n rig ht to be free fro m th e us e o f e x c e s s i ve fo rce in th e co ur se of an arre st .’ ”

McCo rmi ck v. Ci ty of For t La ud e r d al e , 33 3 F.3 d 12 34 , 12 44 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 )
( qu ot in g Lee , 28 4 F.3 d at 11 97 ). “ ‘Fou rth Am en dm en t juri sp ru de nc e ha s lo ng

reco gn i z e d t h a t th e rig ht to m ak e an arre st or in ve st ig at or y st op ne ces sa ril y carr ie s

wit h it th e rig ht to us e so m e de gr ee of ph y si cal co erci on or th reat th ereo f to effe ct it .’ ”

Lee , 28 4 F.3 d at 11 97 ( qu ot i n g G r ah am v. Co nn er , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 6, 10 9 S. Ct

.
18 65 , 1 87 1- 72 (1 98 9) ). The refo re, th e qu es ti on we as k is whe th er, un de r Galv ez’s

ve rs io n of th e fact s, Bru ce “ be ha ve d reas on ab ly in th e li gh t of th e c i r cu m st an ces

be fo re hi m .” McCo rmi ck , 33 3 F.3 d at 12 44 ( ci ti ng Vin ya rd , 31 1 F.3 d at 1 3 4 7 ).

“ [T]h e f o r c e us ed by a po li ce of

fic er in carr y in g ou t an arre st m us t be reas on ab ly

pr op or ti on at e to th e ne ed fo r th a t fo rce, whi ch is m eas ur ed by th e se ve rit y of th e

cri m e, th e d an ge r to th e o ffi cer, an d t he ris k o f fl ig ht .” Lee , 28 4 F .3d at 1 19 8.

W e fin d th at , un de r Galv ez’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, a ju r y c o u l d fin d th at hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce du rin g th e arre st were vi ol at ed

.
Acco rd in g t o G al ve z, aft er Bru ce ha d hi m ha nd cu ffed , Galv ez of fere d no ph y si cal

res is ta nc e at al l to Bru ce. In de ed , Galv ez co nt en ds th at , aft er he was ha nd cu ffed , he

co op er a t ed wit h Bru ce an d di d no m or e th an “ sa y ” so m e th in gs to Bru ce. Und er 3

The district c ourt found that Galvez avoided the question of whether he cooper ated with B ruce at 3 this ti me, but Galvez’s deposition testimony is clear

. Q: Were y ou [Galvez] cooper ating with him [ Br uce]?

10Galv ez’s ve rs i o n of th e fact s, on th e way ou t of th e cl in ic , he was si m pl y as ki ng

Bru ce why Bru ce was ar r e s ti ng hi m an d why Bru ce was hu m il ia ti ng hi m an d

in fo rm in g Bru ce th at he kn ew Bru ce’s bo ss

. Non et he le ss , B r u c e f or cefu ll y 4

“ dr ag ge d” Galv ez ou ts id e an d pr oc eed ed to rep eat ed ly “ sl am ” Galv ez’s bo dy in to th e

c o r n e r o f a co nc ret e st ru ct ur e, cau si ng Galv ez ex tre m e pa in , p ut ti ng Galv ez in fea r

fo r hi s li fe, an d in fli ct in g se rio us in juri es

. Co ns id eri ng th e se ve rit y of th e cri m es , th e

d a n g e r t h e Pl ai nt iff po se d to th e of fic er, an d th e ris k of fli gh t by th e Pl ai nt iff ( t h e

th ree fact or s id en ti fie d by t h e S u p r e me C ou rt in Gra ha m an d res ta te d by t hi s co ur t

in Lee ), we no te th at th e cri m es wit h whi ch Galv ez was ch arg ed were no t se ve re; pe ti t

th e f t a n d res is ti ng arre st wit ho ut vi ol en ce are bo th m is de m ean or s; an d, un de r

Galv ez’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, on ce he was ha nd cu ffed , he po se d no da ng er to of fic er

Bru ce an d no ris k of fli gh t. Thu s, cred it in g Galv ez’s st or y , as we m us t on su m

m ary

A: Yes. When he led me all the way to the corne r of the ca rp o rt wher e there is alre ady concr ete , he was able to g et me there

. Otherw ise, if I did not cooper ate, I co u l d h ave been– me and him could have been r olling ar ound the g round, y ou know . . . .
(R.1-16, Ex. J . at 365.)
Rely ing on other witnesses’ testimony , the district c ourt found Galvez “wa s scre aming at passing 4 motorists about police brutality and Rodney King while Br uce led him outside” and “Ga lvez continued to scre am at passing motorists for help befor e and while the forc e was exerted.” (R.1-25 at 9, 17.) This is not Galvez’s story . Galvez admits to shouting during the enc ounter with Bruce , but he maintains that his shouting consisted of cry ing for Br uce to s t o p h urting him and acc using Br uce of police brutality in order to c all the attention of passer s-by to Br uce’ s actions of slamming him a g ainst the wall. Ga lvez’s testimony , then, supports an infe renc e that he w as subjected to the forc e prior to shouting

.
11jud gm en t, we fin d th at th e fo rce of rep eat ed ly sl am m in g Galv ez i n t o a co rn er of a 5

co nc ret e st ru ct ur e aft er he was ha nd cu ffed an d co m pl ia nt was di sp ro po rti on at e to th e

ne ed fo r th at fo rce. Thu s, on th e fact s as al le ge d by Galv ez, a jury co u l d fin d th at

Bru ce v io la te d Gal ve z’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.

W e no w co ns id er whe th er Galv ez h a s d e mo n st rat ed th at , at th e ti m e of th e

ev en ts in th is cas e, th e s t a t e of th e la w was su ch th at it wou ld ha ve be en cl ear to

Bru ce th at hi s act io ns vi ol at e d G a l v e z’s rig ht s. “ [T]he bu rd en is on th e pl ai nt iff to

sh ow th at , whe n th e de fen da nt act ed , th e la w es ta bl is he d th e co nt ou rs of a r i g h t so

cl earl y th at a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld ha ve un de rs to od h i s act s were un la wfu l.”

Pos t v. Ci ty of Ft. La ud

er da le , 7 F.3 d 15 52 , 15 57 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 93 ). Galv ez do es no t

co nt en d th at an y fed eral st at ut e o r co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n is sp eci fic en ou gh to

cl earl y es ta bl is h th at Bru ce’s co nd uc t was un la wfu l. Thu s, Galv ez m us t de m on st rat e

th at cas el aw ex is ti ng at th e ti m e of B r u c e ’s act io ns ei th er es ta bl is he s a br oa d,

ap pl ic ab le pr in ci pl e of la w or ha s m at eri al ly si m il ar fact s su ch th at it wou ld pu t Bru ce

on no ti ce t ha t h is act io ns were u nl awfu l.

As we rec og nized in McCormick ,“We have repe atedly said that ‘fa cts, as acc epted at the summary 5 judgme nt stag e of the proce eding s, may not be the actua l fac ts of the case .’” 333 F.3d at 1244 n.14 (11th Cir. 2003) ( quoting Lee , 284 F.3d at 1190; Priester v. City of Riviera Beac h , 208 F.3d 919, 925 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000)). We note, as did the district court, that other w itnesses deposed in this ca se controve rt Galvez’s testimony reg arding whether he continued to resist Br uce p h y s i cally while outside of the clinic, whether he was shouting throug hout the encounte r, and whether Br uce’ s actions

wer e nec essar

y to control Galve z.

12Galv ez arg ue s th at Sl ic ker v. Ja cks on , 21 5 F.3 d 12 25 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ), an d Lee

v. Ferr ar o , 28 4 F.3 d 11 88 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ), are m at eri al ly si m il ar cas es to hi s an d th at

th es e cas e s es ta bl is h an d ap pl y th e pr in ci pl e th at fu ll y se cu red arre st ees can no t be

su bjec te d to fo rce li ke th at in fli ct ed on hi m by Bru ce. In Sl ic ker , we de ni ed qu al ifi ed

im m un it y to of

fic ers who rep eat ed ly sl am m ed a ha nd cu ffed , no nr es is ti ng arre st ee’s

he ad in to th e pa ve m en t, ki ck ed hi m whi le he la y on th e gr ou nd , a nd ul ti m at el y

kn oc ke d hi m un co ns ci ou s. Sl ic ker , 21 5 F.3 d at 12 33

. In Lee , we de ni ed qu al ifi ed

im m un it y to an of

fic er who s l a mm ed an arre st ee’s he ad ag ai ns t th e tru nk of a car

th ou gh th e p la in ti ff n ev er re si st ed th e o ffi cer in an y way an d “ po se d n o t hr eat at a ll

to th e of fic er or to anyone el se an d n o ri sk of f li gh t.” Lee , 28 4 F.3d at 11 91 , 11 98

.
W e jud ge Bru ce’s co nd uc t “ fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er on th e

sc en e, rat he r th an th ro ug h t he len se of hi nd si gh t .

. . .” Kes in ge r ex re l. Kesi ng er v.

Her ri ng to n , 38 1 F

. 3 d 12 43 , 12 49 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ); se e al so Vin ya rd , 31 1 F.3 d at

13 47 (th e fo rce u se d “ m

us t b e jud ge d o n a cas e-b y -cas e b as is fro m th e p ers pe ct iv e

of a reas on ab le of

fic er on th e sc en e, rat he r th an wit h th e 20 /2 0 vi si on of hi nd si gh t.”)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.
As di s c u ss ed ab ov e, un de r Galv ez’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, he was a fu ll y
se cu red , co op erat iv e, m is de m ean or arre st ee at th e ti m e Bru ce sl am m ed hi m in to th e

13wall

. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we ag ree wit h Galv ez th at ou r de ci si on s in Sl ic ker 6

an d Lee s h o u l d h av e pu t Bru ce on no ti ce th at he wou ld be vi ol at in g Galv ez’s

co ns it ut io na l rig ht s by rep eat ed ly sl am m in g Galv ez’s bo dy in to t he co rn er of a

co nc ret e wal l with fo rce su ffi ci en t to br eak hi s rib s and cau se a le ak in g a ne ur y sm

.
The les so n o f Sl ic ker

an d Lee is th at qu al ifi ed im m un it y is no t avai la bl e to off ic ers

who su bjec t arre st ees to si gn ifi can t fo rce aft er “ th e arre st ha [s ] be e n f u l l y effe ct ed ,
th e arre st ee co m

pl et el y se cu red , an d al l da ng er vi ti at ed .” Lee , 28 4 F.3 d at 11 99 -1 20 0;

se e al so Sl ic ker , 21 5 F.3 d at 12 33

. Use of si gn ifi can t fo rce on an arre st ee who wou ld

be co ns id ered by an y reas on ab le po li c e o f f ic er to be fu ll y se cu red is “ who ll y

unne ces sa ry to an y le gi ti m at e la w en fo rcem en t pu rp os e” an d th eref or e un la wfu l. Le e ,
28 4 F.2 d at 11 99

. Und er Galv ez’s ve rs io n of th e fact s, Bru ce sh ou ld ha ve co ns id ered

hi s us e of fo rce si m il ar to th at in Sl ic ker an d Lee

. Giv en th e st at e of th e la w in 20 04 ,

Be cause it cre dited other witness testimony that conflicts with Galvez’s, the district court came to 6 the conclusion that Galvez was not f ully secur ed at the time B ruce used forc e. (R.1-25 at 10, 16.) That fac tual deter

mination led the district court to find that the case law Galvez cites reg arding fully

secur ed ar

restee s is inapplicable. (

Id. at 16.) We ag ree that, if Gal v ez wa s , in fac t, eng ag ed in the verba l tirade that some of the other witnesses descr ibe, his case would be differ ent from those of the plaintiffs in Slicker and Lee

. Under those circ umstances, Galvez may not have been a fully -sec ured arr estee

. And, though Galvez arg ues otherwise, if he wer e eng ag ed in a ve rbal tirade as he w as led out of the clinic, we would also find materia l d i ff

er en ce s betwee n this case – in which Galvez had just been handcuf fed, was still standing , and was being led from behind by the office r – and that of t h e p l ai n t i ff in Vinyard v. W ilson , 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2002). I n Vinyard , we denied an office r q u al i fi ed immunit y beca use his use of forc e could not be justified ag ainst a verba lly protesting arr estee who was locked in the partitioned passe ng er c ompartment of his police ve hicle. Id . at 1355.

14it sh ou ld ha ve be en cl ear to Bru ce th at rep eat e dl y sl am m in g a fu ll y se cu red an d

co m pl ia nt Galv ez ag ai ns t th e co rn er of a co nc ret e wall , wit h fo rce su ffi ci en t to br eak

Galv ez’s ri bs an d c au se a le ak in g a ne ur y sm , was u nl awfu l. 7

VI. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e reas on s st at ed ab ov e, Bru ce is no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y at th e

su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e. W e va cat e th e su m m ary jud gm en t an d rem an d th e cas e to

th e d is tri ct co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.
VACATED AN D REMANDED.

Galvez also arg ues t hat Bruce ’s conduct s o o b v i o usly violated t he C onstitut ion that case law was 7

unnece ssary to put Br

uce on notice that his actions wer e unlawful. Be cause we find that Slicker and Lee put Br

uce on notice that his actions wer e unlawful, we do not decide whether this is a case wher e the offic er’ s actions wer e “‘so f ar be y ond the hazy

border betwee n excessive and a cce ptable for ce [t hat ever y objectively rea sonable office r] had to know he was v i o l at i n g the Constit ution even without case law on point.’” Vinyard , 311 F.3d at 1355 ( quoting Priester , 208 F.3d at 926; Smith v. Maddox , 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 ( 11th Cir. 1997)) (a lteration in orig inal).

15