FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT May 6, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Pasco M. B owman I I , United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1260 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 23 17 0- CV-AJ MIC HAEL E . HADLE Y, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us G
. G U T IE RR E Z , Mi am i B ea chP oli ce O ff ic er , Ba dge #71 0, J. O RT IV E RO , Mi am i B ea chP oli ce O ff ic er , Ba dge #70 7,

D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ay 6 , 200 8) Be fo re W IL SO N , CO X a nd B O W MA N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * COX , C ircuit Judg e:Hadley also sued the De fenda

nts’ supervisor, Sg t. Smi th. The district court dismiss ed 1 Smit h from the law suit, a ruling H adley does not cha lleng e. Hadley moved for le ave to f

ile an ame nded complai n t . (R
. 1 -31.) The district court 2 g rante d the motion to permit Hadley to a dd a “John Doe ” defe ndant. I t the n direc ted that Hadley ’s case would otherwise pr ocee d acc ordingto the orig inal complaint. (R.2-72 at 3.) 2 This excessive force case is bef ore us on in terlocutory

appeal fr om

the district court’ s order deny ing Defendants Or tivero’ s and Gutierre z’ s m otion for sum m ary jud gm en t s eek in g q ua li fie d i m m un it y . W e aff

irm in pa rt a nd rev ers e in pa rt. I. Ba ck gr ound Mi ch ael H ad le y

f ile d pro se a ci vil r igh ts c om pla int und er 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 against Miam i Beac h p o l i ce officers G erm an Gutierr ez and Jose Or tivero (“ De fendants”). Ha dley

filed his com

plaint after p l e a di ng g ui lty in Florida state court 1 to o ne c ount

of r es ist ing a rr es t w ithvio le nc e in v iol at ionof F la
. S ta t. § 84 3. 01. T he part ie s a gr ee that w hil e hig h onc oc ai ne , H ad le y en te re d aP ubl ix supe rm ar ke t y el lin g, “ H el p m e, he lp m e, Je hovah G od p le as e he lp m e! ” an d D ef en dants , upo n arri vin g at the sto re , fo und H ad le y r unni ng aro und an d kn oc kin g it em s o ff o f th e sh el ve s. (R .1-1 at 4 .) Thei r ag reem en t o n t he fact s en ds he re. Ac cording to h is com

plaint, the De fendants “ drew their g uns and ordered Mr.

2 H ad le y to fr ee ze . Mr
. H ad le y

im m ed iate ly c om pli ed a nd D ef en dants G uti er

re z an d O rt ive ro the n pr oc ee de d to r es tr ai n Mr. H ad le y by pla ci ng him in handc uf

fs be hin d his ba ck
. . . w ith out

inc ide nt. ” (R
. 1- 1 at 5. ) Whil e han dc uf fe d and b ei ng l ed

f ro m the“ Ire me mbe r t he of fi c e rs c omi ngint o th e sto re . It w a s tw o o f the m. An d the y ha d th e ir 3 wea pon drawn out like, y ou know, in the stance of ‘f ree ze.’ That i s what they

said, ‘fr eeze,’ and I froze. . . . [N]ow we are on our wa y to the police cr

uiser in the par

king lot of Publ ix . Ireme mber looking up at the sky

and I said, ‘Jehovah God, help me,’ [at which time] Ortivero sa id, ‘Shut up, nigg er,’ and punche d me in my stomach.” ( R.2-99 at 13: 21-24; 18: 3-16.)

3 sto re , he a ga in b eg ana ski ng for Jehovah’ s pr ote ct ion
. “ D ef en dants G uti er

re z an d O rt ive ro start ed punc hin g Mr
. H ad le y in his sto m ac h an d fa ce unt il he w as be at enint o a sta te of unc onsc iou sne ss. Whil e the y w er e doin g this the D ef en dants w er e y el lin g ‘Shu t up nigge r’ in re spon se to Mr
. H ad le y [’ ] s pl ea f or he lp f ro m Je hovah G od.” (R
. 1- 1 a t 5. ) H ad le y

te sti fi ed to es se nti al ly

the sa m e sto ry in his de posi tio n, but the onl y e xc es siv e fo rc e he c om pla ine d a bout w as asin gle pun chto the sto m ac h by O ff ic er O rt ive ro . 3 H ad le y r ec ount s asli ght ly

dif fe re nt ve rs ionof

the f ac ts i n hi s R es pons e to D ef en dants ’ Mot ion fo r Su m

m ar y Judg m en t (“ sw or

n re spon se ”)
. (R
. 2- 92. ) T he m ost im portant d if

fe re nc e is h is c ont en tio n th at he did re sis t ar re st w hil e ins ide the P ubl ix. See R. 2- 92 a t 4 (“ [I ] t i s c le ar ly es ta bli she d tha t Pl ai nti ff

’ s ar re st, ple a, a nd c onvi ct ion f or t he of f e ns e of r e si st i ng a rr e st w i t h vi ol e nc e w a s gr ound e d on t he i ni tial contact be tw een Pl ai nti ff

H ad le y , a nd D ef

en dants G uti er

re z, a nd O rt ive ro , . . . w hic h to ok pla ce w ith in the P ubl ix s uper m ark et . . . . ”) ; id

. at 5 ( “ [b ] as ed

on the f ir st a ct of resisting arrest w ith vio lence w ithin the Publix su perm arket by Plaintiff”)
.T h e c o urtagr ee d wi thth e m agi s tra t e j u d g e th atHa d l ey ’s co mp l ai n t , al th o u gh 4 cl a im in ganE igh th

A me n dme n t v io lati o n , s h o u ld b e c o n s tr u e d a s a s s e rti n ga

F o urth A me n dme nt violation. (R.3-127 at 2.) B ut, unlike the mag istrate judg e, the c ourt ref u sed to treat Hadley ’s conspirac y

claim, which he asser

ted under § 1983, as a c onspiracy

under 42 U .S.C. § 1985. ( Id. at 3.) 4 Not sur pr i si ng l y , D e f

e nd a nt s of

f e r a di f f e r e nt ve r si on of t he e ve nt s that transpired that nigh t. A ccording to th eir ac count, Ha dley did no t cooperate when they
or de re d hi m to fr ee ze in the Pu bli x. In ste ad , he be gan “ to sw ing his a rm s inavio le nt
m an ne r an d began scr eam ing ‘ Je hovah take m e, Je hovah take m e. ’ A ft er [ a] str uggl e w[ ith] De f[endant] he w as finally taken into custo dy .” (R.2 -84, E x. 1 at 2. ) O nce out sid e of the sto re a nd e n r out e to the pol ic e car, the y c ont en d, H ad le y

“ be cam e ir at e
an d be gan to start

kic kin g a t bo th o ff

ic er [s ]
. . . a t w hic h po int he w as r ed ir ec ted to th e gr ou nd ,” cau si ng a v is ib le lac erat io n t o h is face . ( Id

. ) O ffice r G utierrez’ s report of the inc ide nt d oe s no t m en tio n any blo w s to H ad le y ’ s sto m ac h or fa ce , nor doe s S gt. Sm it h’s s up erv is orrep or t. A ft er ple ad ing gui lty in Fl or ida state co urt t o on e co unt of r es ist ing a rr es t w ith violence, H adley

filed this § 19 83 civil rights com plaint. In pertinent part, Ha dley al le ge s th at

D ef en dants use d e xc es siv e fo rc e an d th at the y c onsp ir ed

to co ve r up the ir use of excessive force . The dis trict cou rt ado pted in part the m agistrate j udge’s r eport
an d r ec om

m en da tio n, a nd d en ie d qu al if ie d im m uni ty to the D ef

en dants . D ef

en dants 4 fil edth is in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al , and we ap po in te d c ou ns el forHadl ey .5 II. Standard of Re view Su m m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he re “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue as to any
m aterial f act and .
. . the m ovant is entitled to j udgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P
. 56( c)
. W e re vie wde nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the f ac ts i n th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov an t. Dy er v. Lee , 488 F. 3d 87 6, 878 (11th Cir. 2007 ). “ In e xe rc isi ng o ur int er loc uto ry

r ev ie wj ur isd ic tio n inqua lif ie d im m uni ty cases, we are not required to m ake our own determ ination of the facts for sum m ary j udgm ent purpos es; we have discretion to accept the d istrict court’ s finding s, if they
are adequate.” Co ttr el l v

. Ca ldw el l , 85 F.3d 14 80 , 14 86 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

III . Jurisdiction and Issu e O n Appeal W e hav e int er loc uto ry j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w the de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t in qua lif ie d im m uni ty c as es w he re our re vie w re qui re s ade te rm ina tio n of the c le ar ly
es tabl is he d l aw th atex is te d a t t he ti m e o f t h e al le ge dl y un la wfu l ac ts . Se e Co ttr el l , 85 F
. 3d a t 14 84 ( ci tin g M itc he ll v. F

ors yt h , 472 U
. S. 511, 528 , 105 S
. Ct
. 280 6, 281 6 (1985)). W e also have j u ri s d i ct ion if the dist rict court sim ply rules that “ m aterial is su es of f

act ” p recl ud edsu m

m ary jud gm en t. Se e id

. at 148 4- 85 ( ci tin g Be h r en s v. Pe lletier , 516 U
. S. 299, 312- 13, 116 S. Ct
. 834, 842 (1 996) ). Fi nall y , in th e cours e of deciding an interlocutory appeal, we have authority to dec ide t h o s e e v identiary6

su ffi ci en cy

is su es th atare part an d par cel of th e co re q ua li fie d i m m un it y is su es . Id

. at14 86
. In li gh to f

o ur l i m i t e d j ur i sd i c t i on , t he i ss ue o n app e a l i s w he t he r t he d i strict court err ed in deny ing D efendants’ m otion for summ ary j udgm ent seeking qu alified im m unity . I n order to decide that issue, however, we m ust consider De fendants’ other arg um en ts to th e ex te nt th ey are i nt ert win edwit h t he qu al ifi edimm un it y an al y si s. IV
. D isc uss ion Q ua lif ie d im m uni ty shi el ds g ove rn m en t of fi ci al s f ro m li ab ility fo r ci vil da m ag es f

or tor ts c om m itt ed w hil e pe rf

or m ing dis cr et ion ar

y dut ie s un less the ir
co nd uc t v io la te s a c le arl y est ab li sh edst a tu to ry

or c on st it ut io na l ri gh t. Harlow v. F itz ge rald , 457 U. S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 272 7, 27 38 (1982). There is no dispu te that D ef en dants w er e en ga ge d inadis cre tio nary duty w hil e ar re sti ng H ad le y . S o th e bur de n sh if

te d to H ad le y

on s um m ar y j ud gm en t t o sh owthat D ef en dants a re not
en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Dahl v. Holley , 312 F. 3d 1228 , 1233 (11th Cir. 2002). Qualified im

m unityinvol ves a two-step inquiry . T he first question is whether

“ [t ] ak enin the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the pa rty

a sse rt ing the inj ur

y , do the f

ac ts
a l l e g e ds h o w[ t h a tDe f

e n d a n t s ’] c o n du c tv i o l a t e dac o n s t i tu t i o n a l [ o r s t a tu t o ry] right? ” Sauc ie r v . Ka tz , 533 U
. S. 194 , 201 , 121 S
. Ct
. 215 1, 215 6 ( 2001 ). I f so, the7

se co nd que sti on i s w he the r the r igh t, be it c onst it ut io na l or

statut or y , w as c le ar ly
es tabl is he d. Id

. A
. Co nst itu tio na l V iol at ion s Inhis co m

pla int , H ad le y al le ge s tw o poss ibl e co nst itu tio na l vi ola tio ns. H e fi rs t alleges that “ De fendants Gutierr ez and Or tivero, in using excessive force against Mr. H ad le y [, ] vio la te d th e E igh th a nd F ourte en th A m en dm en ts” to the Co nst itu tio n. ( R. 1- 1 a t 9. ) H e al so a lle ge s th at the D ef en dants ’ “ cons pi racy t o cove r up this inc ide nt vio la te s th e E igh th and Fo urte en th A m en dm en ts [t o] the U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n, and 42 U.S .C. § 1983 .” (

Id

. a t 9- 10. ) W e ad dr es s e ac h a lle ga tio n intur n. 1. E xcessive Force In an excessive forc e case arising out o f an ar re s t , whether a constitut ional vio la tio n oc curr ed

is gove rn ed

by the Fo urth A m en dm en t’ s “ obj ec tiv e
reas on ab le ne ss ” st an da rd
. B ro ss e au v . Haugen , 543 U
. S. 194 , 197 , 125 S
. Ct
. 596 , 598 (2 004) ( ci tin g Tennessee v. Garner , 471 U
. S. 1, 10 5 S. Ct . 1 694 (1 985) , a nd G raha m v . Co nnor , 490 U
. S. 386, 109 S. Ct
. 1865 (1 989) ). A ge nuin e “ ex ce ssi ve fo rc e” c la im re la te s to the m an ne r in w hic h an ar re st w as c ar

ri ed out , ind ep en de nt o f whe th er l aw en f

o r c em en t h adth e p owe r to arre st . B ashi r v . R oc kd ale Co unt y, G a. , 445 F. 3d 1 323, 133 2 (1 1th Ci r. 2006 ). O ur c as es ide nti fy

se ve ra l f ac tor s in str

uc tiv e in d et er m ini ng w he the r anof

fi ce r’ s us e of

f or ce w a s o b

j e c t ive ly r ea sona ble , inc lud ing8

“ (1 ) the ne ed

f or the appl ic at ionof

f or ce , (2 ) the re la tio nshi p be tw ee n th e ne ed a nd the a m ount

of f or ce use d, ( 3) the e xte nt o f the inj ur y inf lic te d and, ( 4) w he the r the force wa s applied in g ood faith or m aliciouslyand sadistically .” Sli ck er v. J ac ks on , 215 F.3d 122 5, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef

use d to c onsi de r H ad le y ’ s sw or n r es pons e to the D ef en dants ’ m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use it co nt ra dic te d hi s pr ior d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i mo n y. I n h i s d e p o s i t i o n , H a d l e y t e s t i f i e dt h a t“O rt i v e r o p u n c h e dme in the sto m ac h and s ai d, ‘ Shut u p, nig ge r, ’ an d,
. . . tha t is al l I r em em be r. ” (R
. 2- 99 at 19: 20- 21. ) Inhis sw or

n r es pons e, how ev er , H ad le y c la im ed th at “ G uti er

re z an d Ortivero . .
. m ade ra cial slurs (shut up n igger), and then comm enced to beat Plaintiff ab out the he ad a nd sto m ac h an d in fa ct be at Pl ai nti ff int o a state of unc onsc iou sne ss, causing severe p erm anent injury
. . . .” (R. 2-92 at 8.) U nder our precedent, the district
co urt w as f

re e to d isr eg ar d H ad le y ’ s sw or n r es pons e as c ontra di ct ory to his pr ior de po si ti on tes ti m on y . See Van T. Junkins & Assocs., Inc. v. U. S. Indus., Inc. , 736 F. 2d 656, 657 ( 11th C ir
. 198 4) ( “ Whe n aparty ha s gi ve n c le ar

a nsw er s to unam

big uous que sti ons w hic h ne ga te the e xis te nc e of a ny ge nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l fa ct , that partyT h ro u g h his counsel’s Supplemental B rief, H adley argues that the district cour t 5 sh ou ld h ave c on sid e re d h is s wo rn re sp on se in fi nd ing the fa c ts fo r p ur po se s o f s umm ary

jud g me nt. (P l.’ s Su pp . B r. at 10 -1 1 n .6 .) We r e je c t th e argume nt t

hat Van T. Junkins does not control this issue, and we find no err or in the district court’ s ref usal to consider H adley ’s sworn r esponse. 9 cannot the re aft er

c re at e suc h an is sue w ithan a ff idavit that m er el y

c ontra dic ts, without explanatio n, previously given clear testim ony .” ). 5 So , vie w ing the f

ac ts a dduc ed

in H ad ley ’s d ep ositio n inthe li ght m ost favor ab le to H ad le y , the c ourt foun d that “ O ff ic er O rt ive ro str

uc k him [H ad le y ] in the sto m ac h e ve n th oughhe w as no t strug gli ng o r re sis tin g, a nd O ff ic er G uti er re z did noth ing to stop hi m .” (R. 3-127 at 3.) It wa s o n this basi s that the court denied qua lif ie d im m uni ty to both of

fi ce rs . W e ex er ci se our

dis cr et ionto accep t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t and conclude that, under those f acts, Of ficer Ortivero’ s punch constituted excessiv e forc e against Hadley . T he court found that Office r O rtivero punched H adley in the stom ach while he w as handcuffed and not strug gling or resisting. O ur cases hold that gratuito us use of force when a crim inal susp ect is not resisting arr est constitu tes
ex ce ssi ve f

or ce . I n Le e v. F

errar o , 284 F
. 3d 1 188 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) , w e he ld tha t a pol ic e of fi ce r use d e xc es siv e fo rc e by slam m ing the pla int if

f’ s he ad ont o the hoo d of he r car w he n sh e w as handc uf

fe d, not pos ing athr eat t o th e of

fi ce r, a nd n ot p osi ng a fl ig ht ris k. Id

. a t1 1 98; s ee a lso Sli cker , 215 F
. 3d a t 12 33 ( fo rc e w as e xc es siv e10

w he re of fi ce rs kic ke d handc uf

fe d an d non- re sis tin g de fe ndant in the r ibs a nd b eat hi s head on the groun d). H ad le y ne ith er r es ist ed ar

re st nor pose d a dange r to Of fi ce r O rt ive ro suf

fi ci en t to w ar rant a blo wto the sto m ac h. T hus O ff ic er O rt ive ro w as not

e nti tle d to use a ny force at that tim e. While Off icer O rtivero m ight h ave subjec tively believed Hadley po se d a ris k o f da ng er— Had le y was a dm it te dl y hi gh on co cai ne an d p aran oi d—we do no t consider the subjective belief of Of ficer Ortivero in dete rm ining whether force is ex ces si ve . Rat he r, ex ces si ve for ce i s ju dg edso le ly on a n o bjec ti ve ba si s. See G raha m v. Co nnor , 490 U
. S. 386, 399, 109 S
. Ct
. 186 5, 187 3 ( 1989 ); No lin v . I sbe ll , 207 F. 3d 1 253, 12 57 n.3 (1 1thCi r. 200 0) ( re fe rr ing to subj ec tiv e el em en t of the excessive force test as “ invalid at ed”). Ther efore, Of ficer Or tivero’ s sing le punch
co ns ti tu te d e xc es si ve for ce. O ff ic e r G u t i e rr e z ’ s i n a c t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s a d i f f e r e n t s t o ry . “ [ A ] n o f

f i c e r w ho is p re se nt at the sc en e an d w ho f ai ls to ta ke re as ona

ble ste ps t o pr ote ct

the vic tim

of
an ot he r of

fic er’s u se of e xc es si ve for ce, ca n b e h el d l iabl e f o r h i s n on feas an ce.” V elazqu ez v . Ci tyof H ial ea h , 484 F. 3d 1340, 1341 (1 1th Ci r. 2007 ) (quot ing Skrtich
v. T horn ton , 280 F
. 3d 1 295, 130 2 (1 1thCi r. 2002 )) ( quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). Bu t i t
m ust also b e true t h at the non-intervening officer wa s in a posit ion to intervene y et fai le d t o d o s o. P rieste r v . Ci tyof Rivera B ea ch , F la. , 208 F. 3d 91 9, 924 (11th Cir.11

2 0 0 0 ). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n d t h at Of fi ce r Gu t i er re z “ d i dn o t h i n g t o s t o p [O rt i v er o ]” fr om pun ch ing H ad le y . ( R. 3- 127 at 3. ) T he c ourt di d not fi nd tha t G uti er re z co uld ha ve pr ev en te d O rt ive ro f ro m doi ng s o. I n f

ac t, H ad le y

pr es en te d no ev ide nc e fr om which a r easonable j ury

co u l d find that Gutierre z could have anticipated and then stopp ed Ortivero from punchi ng Ha dley once in the stom ach. Ther efore, the district court err ed in deny ing qu alified im m unity to Off

icer Gutierrez because he com m itted
no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Be fo re le av ing the top ic of ex ce ssi ve fo rc e, w e pau se to addre ss an ar gum en t advanc ed by the D ef

en dants be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt and b ef or e us—tha t, in lig ht o f his gui lty ple a to r es ist ing a rr es t wi th vi olenc e, H ad le y ’ s e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m is b a rr e db y He ck v. Hum

phrey , 512 U. S. 477, 114 S. Ct . 236 4 (1994), and collateral
es top pe l. In He ck , the Suprem e Court articulated the principle that “ when a state prisoner
se ek s dam ag es in a § 19 83 s uit , the dis tr ic t cour t m ust co nsi de r w he the r a j udgm en t in f av or of the pla int if

f w oul d ne ce ssari ly

im pl y th e inv al idi ty

of his c onvi ct ionor sentence; if it w ould , the c om plaint m ust be dis m i s s ed unless th e plaintiff can dem onstrate that the convictio n or s entence has alre ady been invalidated.” Id

. a t 48 7, 114 S. Ct
. a t 23 72. T he thr ust of the D ef en dants ’ a rg um en t i s th at H ad le y ’ s gu ilty plea “ constitu tes an adm issio n to the lawf ulness o f the O ffice rs’ actions during [the]Th e inf or matio n c ha

rg ingHa dle y

wi th r e sis tin garr e st w ithvio le nc e re a ds in f ull : 6 MI CHAEL

EDWI N HADL EY, on or a

bout Febr uary 03 , 2002, in the County

and State afor esaid, did unlawfully , knowing ly , willfully and fe loniously

resist, obstruct or op po se OF F I CER

G. GU TI ERREZ a nd/or OF F I CER

J. ORT I VE RO , d

uly qua li f ie d L aw E n f

o r c e me n t O f

f ic e r s , in th e la

w f u l e xe c u ti o n o f a le g a l d

u ty being perf ormed by said offic ers[], t o wit: the detention and/or arre st of said defenda nt, by the sa id d e fe ndant( s) of

fe ri ngor do ingvio le nc e to t

he pe rs on of sa id o ff ic e rs [], in violation of s. 843.01, Fla. Stat., contra ry to t h e fo rm o f t he Statute in such ca ses made a nd provided, a

nd ag ainst the pea ce a

nd dignity

of the State of F lorida. (R.2-84, Ex. 5 at 2.) 12 ar re st[ , ] ” (D ef

s. ’ I nit ia l B r. at 17 ), so tha t su cc es s onthe § 19 83 c la im w oul d
ne ces sa ril y

in va li da te Hadl ey ’s gu il ty ple a. T he part ie s spe nd co nsi de ra ble tim e de ba tin g at w ha t poi nt dur ing the
e n c o u n t e r H a d l e y r e s i s t e d
. B e c au s e o f h i s g u i l t y p l e a , w e a s s u me h e r e s i s t e d a ts o me poi nt d ur ing the nig ht. Wha t w e do n ot d ef ini tiv el y kno w , h owe ve r, is w he the r the punc h c om

pla ine d a bout oc curr ed a t a ti m e w he n H ad le y

w as r es ist ing
. T he r es ist ing
ar re st c ount to w hic h H ad le y

ple ad ed gui lty is ge ne ra l i n na tur e, an d off er s no ins igh t int o th e se que nc e of

e ve nts su rro un din g H ad le y ’ s arr es t, inc lud ing a t w ha t po int H ad le y re sis te d. It is the or et ic al ly pos sib le that H ad le y

w as pun ch ed

the n r es ist ed , 6
or ev en that he r es ist ed

f ir st, but w as pun ch ed

a ft er he sto ppe d r es ist ing
. S o th e qu e s t i o n b e c o mes , v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r ab l e t o Ha d l e y, whether a j ury

could conclud e that at som e point Office r O rtivero punched Hadley in the sto m ac h w he n he w as not re sis tin g? I f so, the re is a co nst itu tio na l vi ola tio n no t b a rr e db y He ck
. T he j ur

y is fr ee to dis be lie ve H ad le y ’ s de posi tio n te sti m ony that he13

never re sisted outsi de of t he Publix, y et also believe that he was nonetheless punched at ati m e w he n he w as not re sis tin g. U nde r tha t ve rs ionof f ac ts, a s D ef

en dants a dm it (D ef s. ’ I nit ia l B r. a t 15 ), the re is no He ck bar. For sim ilar re asons, the excessive force claim is not barred by

collateral estoppel. Beca

use Def endants rely

on a s tate cr im inal judgm ent to bar a fe deral
ac tio n, w e loo k to the state ’ s lawgov er nin g c oll at er al e sto ppe l. F lor ida pe rm its the
us e o f de fen si ve co ll at eral est op pe l i n t he cri m in al -to -ci vi l co n t e xt . See V azqu ez v. M etro. D ade Co unt

y , 968 F. 2d 1101, 1106 (1 1thCi r. 199 2) ; Ze idw ig v
. W ard , 548 S o. 2d 2 09, 209 ( Fl a. 19 89 ). Bu t, c oll at er al e sto ppe l do es not appl y w he re one of

the iss ue s f orm ing the ba sis of

the c ivi l l aw sui t w as not

ne ce ssari ly

r es olv ed in the pr ior cri m ina l pr oc ee din g. Vazquez , 9 6 8 F
. 2 d a t 1 1 0 8
. H a d l e y ’ s g u i l t y p l e a t o a non spe ci fi c ch ar ge of

r es ist ing ar

re st w ithvio le nc e did

not ne ce ssari ly

r es olv e the iss ue of whether

Of ficer Or tivero punch ed Ha dley

while he w as re s i s t ing. Ther efore, be c aus e t he i ss ue o f

e xc e ss i ve f

or c e w a s no tr e so l ve d i n t he p r i or c r i m inal pr oc eed in g, Had le y

is no t co ll at eral ly esto pp edfro m li ti ga ti ng th atis su e n ow. 2. Conspiracy

“ [ T ] o su st a i n a c on sp i r a c y a c t i on un de r § 19 83
. . . a pl a i nt i f f m us t sh ow an underly ing actual denial of [his] co nstitu tional right s.” G JR I nv s. , I nc . v . Co unt

y of E sc ambi a, Fla. , 132 F
. 3d 1 359, 137 0 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) ( ci tin g Sla vi n v . Cu rry , 574In Bo nn e r v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 7 adopted as binding prec edent decisions of the f ormer F ifth Circuit handed down pr ior to October 1, 1981. 14 F.2 d 12 56 , 12 62 (5 th Cir . 19 78 ), modified on oth er groun ds on denial of reh’g , 583 F. 2d 779 (5 th Ci r. 1978 ) ). In ad dit ion , the pla int if f m ust pr ove tha t the d ef

en dants 7
reac he d a n u nd ers ta nd in g t o d en y th e p la in ti ff’s ri gh t s . See B endibu rg v. D em psey , 909 F.2d 463 , 469 (11th Cir. 1990). H ad le y a lle ge s th at

the D ef en dants co nspi re d to c ove r up the ir use of e xc es siv e fo rc e by f al sif y ing pol ic e re ports i n vi ola tio n of his rig ht s unde r the E igh th and Fo urte en th A m en dm en ts. I n th ei r m otion f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, the D ef

en dants
ar gue tha t H ad le y cannot de m onstrate a co nst itu tio na l vio la tio n or an ag reem en t be twee n t he m

to co ve r up th e u se of e xc es si ve for ce. H ad le y f ai ls t o e xpl ai n w ha t c onst itu tio na l r igh t t h e a l l eg ed c ove r- up i nf

ri nge d. W e can im agine som e possib ilities. Covering up t h e u s e of excessive force m ay hin de r a cr im ina l de fe ndant’ s a cc es s to the c ourts t o r edre ss a c onst itu tio na l vi ola tio n,
a rig ht pro te ct edby sev eral co ns ti tu ti on al pro vi si on s. See Chappell v. R ich , 340 F
. 3d 1279 , 1282- 83 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) ( ri ght se cure d by

A rt ic le I V ’ s P ri vil eg es a nd Im m uni tie s Cl au se , Fi rs t A m en dm en t, Fi fth A m en dm en t, an d F ourte en th A m en dm en t). Or, t he co ve r-up m ay pre ve nt ex cu lp at ory

or i m peac hin g e vid en ce f

ro m
re ac hin g th e de sk o f the state pr osecut or , ade nia l of the de fe ndant’ s du e pr oc es s15

rig ht s u nd er t he Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. S e e M c M i l l i a n v . J o h n s on , 8 8 F. 3d 1 554, 1567 -6 8 (11 th C ir
. 199 6)
. H ad le y doe s no t c ont en d th at

the a lle ge d c ove r- up pr ev en te d hi m

f ro m se ek ing r edre ss f

or ac onst itu tio na l violatio n, or that the c ove r- up de ni edth e st at e p ro se cu to r acc es s t o e xc ul pa to ry or i m pe ach in g e vi de nc e. H ad le y ha s th e burde n to sho wa n a ct ua l de nia l of

his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts underly ing th e cover- up consp iracy . I t i s not ou r j ob to d ivine a constitu tional vi o l at i o n to supp ort Ha dley ’ s conspi racy claim . W e ar e left c om

pletely in the dark ab out the c onst itu tio na l ba sis f

or the c la im
. H is c om

pla int co nta ins no exp lana tio n of
w h i c h r i g h t s p r o t e c t e db y th e F o u rt e e n t h Ame n dmen twe r e i n f r i n g e d
. An d , t e l l i n g l y,
ne ith er H ad le y ’ s pro se b ri ef (P l .’s In i t i al Br . a t1 1 -1 2 ) n o r h i s ap p o i n t ed co u n s el ’s br ie f (P l. ’ s S upp. Br
. a t 20 -2 1) c it es a sin gle c onsp ir ac y c as e. H ad le y

ha s w hol ly fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a co nst itu tio na l ba sis fo r as se rt ing ac onsp ir ac y c la im suf fi ci en t t o
w ith stand s um

m ar y j udgm en t. Mor e im portantl y , f

or pur pose s of sum m ar y jud gm ent, H ad le y

of fe re d no evidence from which we can discern an agreem ent betwee n the Def endants to cov er up the use of excessive force. The district co u rt fo und th at H adley ’ s testim ony that Offi cer Gu ti erre z to ld Offic er Ort iv ero th athe ha d “ ‘nai le d h im [Had le y ] go od ’ . . . ta ke n to ge the r w itha ll the oth er e vid en ce . . . is en oughto show a n a gr ee m en t by O ff icers O rt ive ro a nd G uti er re z to c ove r up the e xc es siv e fo rc e al le ge dly use d byAppar ently , Offic er Ortivero did not file an incident r eport; the pa rties point to none 8 in their brief

s, and none is attac hed to their motion for summary judgme nt. 16 O ff ic er O rt ive ro . ” (R
. 3- 127 at

3. ) Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of f ac t onthi s issue are inadequate, we m ust look to the record to determ ine whether genuin e issues of m at eri al fact pre cl ud edsu m m ary jud gm en t. Se e Co ttr el l , 85 F
. 3d a t 14 86. H ad le y te sti fi ed that he he ar d S gt. S m ithte ll the D ef en dants that the y

sho uld ha ve the ir r ep orts o f the inc ide nt—

w ith the “ sa m e tim e, da te a nd e ve ry thi ng” —onhis de sk the fo ll ow ing m or

nin g. ( R. 2- 99 a t 61
. ) H ad le y te sti fi ed that S m ithm ad e thi s statem ent in r espons e to one of the De fendants a sking whether he co u l d p u n ch Had le y ag ai n. ( Id

. a t 60- 62. ) H ad le y

a lso te sti fi ed

that he he ar d O ff

ic er G uti er re z te ll O ff ic er O rt ive ro that he “ na ile d hi m goo d. ” H ad le y

m ai nta in s that

the se state m en ts sh ow t ha t t he Defen da nt s co ns pi redto co ve r up Orti ve ro ’s us e o f ex ces si ve for ce. T ha t S m ith w an te d th e D ef en dants ’ r ep orts o n hi s de sk the f oll ow ing m or

nin g is n ot s ur pr isi ng; his job r es pons ibi lit ie s in cl ude c om pil ing asup er

vis or ’ s r ep ort of
cr im es . ( R. 2- 84, E x. 1, A tta ch
. 1, 2. ) Mo re to the poi nt, the re is ne ith er dir ec t no r 8 ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce in the r ec or d th at sup ports the finding o f ana gr ee m en t be tw ee n O ff

ic er O rt ive ro a nd O ff

ic er G uti er re z to c ove r up the inc ide nt. In summ ary , w e hold t h at a fact- finder could conclud e that O ffice r O rtivero vio la te d H ad le y ’ s F ourth A m en dm en t r igh t t o be fr ee fr om ex ce ssi ve fo rc e. W e hol d17

t h at n ei t h erOf

fi ce r O rt i v er o n o r O ff

i ce r G u t i er re z o t h er wi s e v i o l at ed an y o f H ad l ey’s
co nst itu tio na l r igh ts. W e tur n no wto the se co nd i nqui ry in the qua lif

ie d im m uni ty
an al y si s, wh et he r th e ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m ex ces si ve for ce was cle arl y est ab li sh ed
. B. Clear ly

Established Law In de te rmini ng whe the r a ri ght is cl earl y est ab li sh ed , “ [t]he rel ev an t, d is po si ti ve inqu iry
. . . is whether it w ould be clear to a reasonable officer that his cond uct was unlawful in the situ ation he confronted.” Saucier , 533 U
. S. at 202, 121 S. Ct
. a t 21 56.

“ Fo r a ri ght

to be ‘ cl earl y es ta

bli she d, ’ pr ev iou s c as e lawm ust ha ve de ve lop ed

it in
a co nc re te fa ct

ua l co nte xt so as to m ak e it obvi ous to a re as ona ble gov er nm en t a ct or that his actions violate federa l law. ” GJ R I nvs., Inc. , 132 F
. 3d a t 13 66. W e hol d th at

ahandc uf

fe d, non -r es ist ing de fe ndant’ s rig ht to be f re e fr om
ex ce ssi ve fo rc e w as cl earl y es ta bli she d in Fe br

uary 2002
. I n Lee , 28 4 F .3d 11 88 , we concluded th at slam

m ing a non-resistin g crim inal susp ect’ s head onto hood of a c ar
co nst itu te d ex ce ssi ve fo rc e. A lon g th ose sa m e lin es , w e pr oc la im ed in Skrtich , 280 F. 3d a t 13 03, that “ [b ] y

19 98 , o ur pr ec ed en t c le ar ly e sta bli she d th at

gov er nm en t of fi ci al s m ay

not use gr at uit ous fo rc e ag ai ns t a pr iso ne r w ho h as be ena lr ea dy subd ued . .
. .” Apply ing “ the excessive force sta n dard would inevitablylead ever y
re as ona ble of fi ce r . . . to co nc lud e tha t the f or ce ” use d he re —punc hin g anon resisting crim inal susp ect for no apparent reason other than m alice—is not protected18

by ou r co ns ti tu ti on . Priester , 208 F
. 3d a t 92 6- 27 ( quot ing P ost v . Ci tyof F

ort La ude rdal e , 7 F.3d 1552 , 1559 (11th Cir. 1998), am en de d by 14 F .3d 583 (11th Cir. 1994 )) ( quot at ion m ark s om itt ed ). T he re fo re , O ff ic er O rt ive ro is not

e nti tle d to qu al ifi edimm

un it y on Hadl ey ’s exc es si ve for ce cl ai m .

V
. Co nc lus ion T he dis tr ic t co urt did not er r in de ny ing O ff

ic er O rt ive ro quali fie d i m m uni ty on the excessive force cla im . T he district court did err in ref u s i n g t o g ra n t Of

ficer G uti er re z qua lif ie d im m uni ty on H ad le y ’ s e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a nd i n refus ing to g ra n t q u a l i fi ed i m

m u n i t y t o b o t h De fe n d an t s o n Ha d l ey’s co n s p i ra cy cl ai m . We
reverse the denial of Gutierr ez’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent. W e affir

m the denial of O rt ive ro ’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t on the e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m , a nd r ev er se th e d en ia l o f Orti ve ro ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he co ns pi racy clai m . AFFIR MED IN PART; R EVERSED IN PART.