FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 7 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10216 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -029 89 -C V -U W C -W L A Q U A R I U S G R A Y , a m i nor , by a nd thr ough he rm othe ra nd n e x t f r ie n d , T o n ik o L . A le x a n d e r , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N T O N I O B O S T I C , i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty a s D e p u ty S h e r if

f f o rT u s c a lo o s a C o u n ty , A L , E D M U N D S E X T O N , i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty a s P r in c ip a l o f

H o lt E le m e n ta ry S c h o o l, T u s c a lo o s a , A L , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts , J O Y C E S E L L E R S , in d iv id u a lly a n d in h e ro f f ic ia l c ap a c ity a s S u p e r in te n d e n t o f T u s c a lo o s a C o u n ty , A L , S c h o o l S y s te m a n d /o rT u s c a lo o s a C o u n ty , A L , B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 7, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s i s the se cond appeal i nv ol vi ng the det ent i on and h andcuffi ng of a ni neyear-o l d stu d en t , L aq u ari u s G ray, d u ri n g h er p h ysi cal ed u cat i o n cl ass. T h e fi rst tim e , w e r e v e r s e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d is m is s a l o f th is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . G r a y v . B o s tic , N o . 0 4 - 1 2 2 4 0 ( 1 1 C ir . D e c . 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 ) . T h is tim e , th e d e f e n d a n ts th appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the i rm ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e ntba s e d on q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . A f

te rr e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m in p a r t a n d r e v e r s e in p a r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . The I nc i de nt C oa c h L a ttuc e G r e e rW i l l i a m s be l i e ve d tha tG r a y w a s notdoi ng “ j um pi ng ja c k s ” a lo n g w ith th e r e s t o f th e p h y s ic a l e d u c a tio n c la s s . C o a c h W illia m s to ld G ra y s he needed t o d o h erexer ci se s. W hen G ra y f ai l ed t o com pl y, C oach W i l l i am s t ol d G ra y t o “ [c ] om e t o the w al l ” of the gym . W i l l i am s t es t i fi ed thatas G r a y w a l k e d t o th e w a l l , “ [ s ] h e t o l d me th a ts h e w o u l d p u n c h me o rh i tme , h i tme3

i n the f a c e . ” A ne a rby t e a c he r , C oa c h T a r a H or t on, w i tne s s e d the di s a gr e e m e nt w i th C oa c h W i l l i a m s . C oa c h H or t on t e s t i f i e d tha tG r a y s a i d, “ I bus ty ou i n the he a d, ” w hi c h C oa c h H or t on e xpl a i ne d m e a nttha t“ s he w a s goi ng t o hi thi m i n the he a d. ” A l though C oa c h W i l l i a m s a nd C oa c h H or t on a ttr i but e s l i ght l y di f f e r e nt l angu age t o G ra y, the gi stof thei r t es t i m on y i s thatG ra y threa t ened t o h i tC oach W illia m s . I n c o n tr a s t , G r a y t e s t i f

i e d th a ts h e d i d n o tth r e a t e n t o “ b u s t ” Co a c h W i l l i a ms i n the he a d. A l though G r a y c oul d notr e m e m be rw ha ts he s a i d, s he a gr e e d tha ts he threa t ened t o “ do som ethi ng ” t o C oach W i l l i am s a nd thatw hatshe s ai d w as d i sresp ect fu l , as fo l l o w s: Q : T h e n , [ C o a c h W illia m s ] to ld m e th a t, a t th a t p o in t, y o u to ld h im th a t y o u w e r e g o in g to b u s t h im in h is h e a d ; is th a t r ig h t? A : N o, si r. Q : Y o u d id n ’t s a y th a t? A : N o, si r. Q : Is C oach W i l l i am s l yi ng t o m e? M R . L I V E O A K : O bj e c t i on Q : (B y M r. W i sdom ) Y ou ca n answ er . Is C oach W i l l i am s t el l i ng m e a l i e? A : I g u e s s h e d id . I d o n ’t r e m e m b e rw h a t I s a id , b u t I d id n ’t s a y th a t. Q : Y ou don’ tr e m e m be rw ha ty ou s a i d? A : ( W itn e s s s h a k e s h e a d .) Q . Y ou don’ tha ve a ny i de a w ha ty ou s a i d? M R . L I V E O A K : I s tha tno? A : N o. Q : ( B y M r . W i s dom ) S o, y ou don’ tknow i f y ou s a i d tha ty ou m i ght pu nch h i m ; i s thatri gh t : D i d you sa y s om ethi ng t o h i m thatw as d is r e s p e c tf

u l?In the first appe al of the Rule 12(b)(6) dismiss al, we reviewe d the alleg ations in the 1 c o mp laint, wh ichs tate d

o n ly th at Gray mad ea “ dis re s p e c tf

u l c o mm e nt”toCo a c hWi ll ia ms . We noted that at the Rule 12(b) (6) juncture, there wa s no alleg ation of prof anity or fighting words or that Gra y was a dang er to a

ny teac her or

student. Gray, No. 04-12240, slip op. at 14, 17. Now, at the summary

judgment juncture, wehave deposition t estimony as to what wa s said and the context in which it was said. 4 A : Y es , si r. Q : W h a t w a s th a t? A . I don ’ tre m em ber. Q . D i d y o u t e l l h i m th a ty o u mi g h td o s o me th i n g t o h i m? A . Y es , si r.

. . . . Q : W h a td i d y o u t e l l h i m th a ty o u w e r e g o i n g t o d o t o h i m? A . I don ’ tre m em ber. 1 B ec au se o f th e s u m m ar y ju d g m en t p o stu re o f th e c as e, w e c o n stru e G ra y’s t es t i m on y a s denyi ng the coaches ’ vers i on of w hatshe s ai d. H ow ever , G ra y does n o t d is p u te th a t s h e th r e a te n e d to “d o s o m e th in g ” p h y s ic a lly to C o a c h W illia m s . T hus the pr e c i s e na tur e of he rphy s i c a l thr e a t– w he the ri tw a s t o hi thi m i n the face, po k e h i m i n th e eye o r k i ck h i m i n th e sh i n s – d o es n o tch an g e o u r an al ysi s. A ft erhear i ng G ra y’ s threa tt o C oach W i l l i am s, C oach H ort on i nstruct ed G r a y to c o m e o v e rto h e r . C o a c h W illia m s th e n tu rn e d h is a tte n tio n b a c k to h is cl ass. D e puty A nt oni o B os t i c a l s o w i tne s s e d the e xc ha nge be tw e e n G r a y a nd C o ac h W il li am s. D ep u ty B o stic w as em p lo ye d as a T u sc alo o sa C o u n ty S h er iff’s D ep u ty an d serv ed as a sch o o l reso u rce o ffi cer (“S R O ”) fo r sev eral sch o o l s, in c lu d in g H o lt E le m e n ta ry . B e f o r e G r a y r e a c h e d C o a c h H o r to n , D e p u ty B o s ticThereis a fac tual dispute about how longGra y was in handcuffs. As to time, Gra y 2 testified that she did not know how longshe stood in handcuf fs. However, Gray

was a sked whether it was “less than f

ive minutes,” and replied “N o, sir.” When Coach H orton was a sked how longGra

y was in handcuffs, she responded, “ I ’m g oing to guestimate two minutes may be.” Deputy Bostic averred that he “ detained [Gra y] for less than 30 seconds . . . .”At the summary judgment stag e, however, w e must review the evidenc e in a light most favorableto Gray and a ssumethat Gra

y wa s h andc uf

fe d f or no t le ss t ha n f ivemin ute s. 5 i nt e r ve ne d a nd t ol d C oa c h H or t on tha the w oul d t a l k t o G r a y . C oa c h H or t on i ns i s t e d tha ts he w oul d ha ndl e the m a tt e r . H ow e ve r , D e puty B os t i c i ns i s t e d tha the w ou l d h andl e G ra y a nd es cort ed G ra y outthe gym do or i nt o a l ob by ar ea . D eput y B ost i c t ol d G ra y t o turn aroun d, pu l l ed her hands behind her back and p utG ra y i n h andcuffs . D eputy B ost i c t i gh t ened the hand cuff s t o the po i ntthat the y c a us e d G r a y pa i n. D e puty B os t i c t ol d G r a y , “ [ T ] hi s i s how i tf e e l s w he n y ou brea k the l aw , ” and “ [T ] hi s i s how i tfe el s t o b e i n j ai l . ” G ra y began t o cry . G ra y s to o d w ith th e h a n d c u f

f s o n f o rn o t le s s th a n f

iv e m in u te s , w ith D e p u ty B o s tic st andi ng behi nd her. 2 I n di s c ove ry r e s pons e s , D e puty B os t i c a ve rr e d tha the de t a i ne d a nd hand cuff ed G ra y “ t o i m pres s upo n h erthe se ri ou s nature of c om m i tt i ng cr i m es that c a n le a d to a rr e s t, d e te n tio n o rin c a r c e r a tio n ” a n d “to h e lp p e r s u a d e h e rto r id h ersel f o f h er d i sresp ect fu l att i tu d e. ” D ep u ty B o st i c’ s d i sco v ery resp o n ses al so st at ed thathe “ di d n otfe el the need t o apo l og i ze t o L aQ uari us G ra y f or t el l i ng her th a t s h e c o m m itte d a m is d e m e a n o rin m y p r e s e n c e a n d s h o w in g h e rw h a t w o u ldDeputy Bostic wa s never

deposed a

nd did not file a dec laration in support of his mot ion 3 for summary

judgment. There fore , the only sworn statement from Deputy Bostic relatingto the e ventsis c ontaine d in

hisint e rrog ator

y re sp on se s. 6 happ en i f al es s gener ou s off i ce r than I w er e t o arr es ther f or her a ct i on s. ” A ft er 3 D eputy B ost i c t oo k the hand cuff s off , G ra y w entt o the C oaches ’ O ff i ce un t i l her n e x t c la s s . N ei ther C oach H ort on no r C oach W i l l i am s w as af ra i d o f G ra y or bel i eved thatG ra y w ou l d actual l y c arry ou ther threa t . W hen asked w hether he w as “ ever a f r a id th a t [ G r a y ] w o u ld c o m m it a n a c t o f v io le n c e to w a r d s [ h im ] o rM s . H o r to n ,” C oach W i l l i am s r epl i ed, “ N o, si r. ” S i m i l ar l y, C oach H ort on re pl i ed “ N o, ’ w hen a s ke d i f s he w a s “ e ve ra f

r a i d tha tM s . G r a y w oul d phy s i c a l l y a s s a ul ty ou or a nothe rs tude nt ? ” W he n a s ke d, “ [ W ] he n M s . G r a y t ol d C oa c h W i l l i a m s tha ts he w a s goi ng t o bus thi m i n the he a d s he ’ s nota c tua l l y phy s i c a l l y c apabl e of doi ng tha t , i s s he , ” C oa c h H or t on a gr e e d. C oa c h H or t on pl a nne d t o t a l k w i th G r a y about the i nc i de nta nd gi ve he ra w a rni ng. C oa c h H or t on t e s t i f i e d tha ts he w oul d not ha ve be e n r e qui r e d t o w r i t e G r a y up, gi ve G r a y de t e nt i on, ors e nd he rt o the p r in c ip a l’s o f

f ic e “b e c a u s e it w a s n ’t th a t m a jo r .” B . C ou r t P r oc e e d i n gs O n N o v em b er 4 , 2 0 0 3 , b y an d th ro u g h h er m o th er, G ray fi l ed su i tag ai n st D e puty B os t i c a nd T us c a l oos a C ounty S he r i f f , E dm und S e xt on i n the i rof f i c i a l a ndGra y ’s orig inal complaint also alleg ed claims ag ainst J oyce H arris, Holt Elementary 4 School’s principal; Joyce Seller s, the Tuscaloosa County School Superintendent; and members of theTu sc aloo sa

County B oa rd of Ed uc atio n. Gray

su bs e qu e ntly

dis mis se d th e sec laims . In the prior a

ppeal, Gray

did not challeng e the dismissal of her First, F ifth, Eighth a

nd 5 F ourt e e nth

Am e ndment c laims , h e r s tatelaw c laims or her o ff ic ial c a pac ity c laims ag ains t Deputy Bostic a nd Sheriff Sexton. 7 i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es. G ray’ s co m p l ai n tco n t ai n ed ei g h tco u n t s, i n cl u d i n g cl ai m s: 4 ( 1) unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 f orvi ol a t i ons of

G r a y ’ s F i r s t , F our th, F i f th, E i ghth a nd F ou rt ee nth A m endm entri gh t s ( C ou nt1); (2) und er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 1 for ra ce d is c r im in a tio n ( C o u n t 2 ) ; a n d ( 3 ) u n d e rs ta te la w f o rin v a s io n o f

p r iv a c y , a s s a u lt and b att ery, fa l se i m pri sonm ent , defa m at i on and i nt ent i on al i nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al di stre ss (C ou nt s 4 throu gh 8). G ra y a l so soug htdecl ar at ory a nd i nj un ct i ve re l i ef (C ou nt3). T he defendant s f i l ed a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss , w hi ch the di stri ctcourt gr a nt e d. G r a y appe a l e d t o thi s C our t , c ha l l e ngi ng onl y the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of he rF our th A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s a ga i ns tD e puty B os t i c a nd S he r i f f S e xt on in d iv id u a lly a n d th e d e n ia l o f h e rm o tio n f

o rle a v e to a m e n d h e rc o m p la in t. W e 5 r e v e r s e d , s ta tin g th a t o n r e m a n d G r a y w a s e n title d to p u r s u e h e rF o u r th A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s a ga i ns tde f e nda nt s D e puty B os t i c a nd S he r i f f S e xt on in d iv id u a lly a n d to f

ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. G r a y , N o . 0 4 - 1 2 2 4 0 , s lip o p . a t 2 2 . T he di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d G r a y t o f i l e a n a m e nde d c om pl a i nta s s e r t i ng onl y the F ou rth A m endm entcl ai m s thatre m ai ned fol l ow i ng her app ea l . G ra y then8

a m e nde d he rc om pl a i nt , a s s e r t i ng c l a i m s of e xc e s s i ve us e of

f or c e a nd u n reaso n ab l e sei zu re ag ai n std efen d an t s B o st i c an d S ex t o n i n d i v i d u al l y. F ol l ow i ng di s c ove ry , the de f e nda nt s m ove d f

ors um m a ry j udgm e ntba s e d on q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n , p r o m p tin g th is in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW A lth o u g h th e d e n ia l o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t g e n e r a lly is n o t a f in a l ap p e a lab le or de rs ubj e c tt o i m m e di a t e appe a l , a n i nt e r l oc ut ory appe a l m a y be t a ke n w he r e the d i stri ctco u rtd en i es th e d efen se o f q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty an d th e ap p eal i n v o l v es a qu es t i on of l aw . M cM i l l i an v. John son, 88 F . 3d 15 54 , 15 63 , am ended o n o ther g ro u n d s, 1 0 1 F .3 d 1 3 6 3 (1 1 C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). W e r ev iew d e n o v o a d istrict co u rt’s th d e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n q u a lif ie d im m u n ity , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in a l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the oppos i ng pa r ty . W i l l i a m s v. C ons ol . C i ty of Ja cksonv i l l e, 34 1 F . 3d 12 61 , 12 66 -67 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). th I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Q u al i fi ed Im m u n i ty P ri n ci p l es “Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity o f

f e r s a c o m p le te p r o te c tio n f o rg o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls s u e d in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s if th e irc o n d u c t ‘d o e s n o t v io la te c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d s ta tu to ry o rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f w h ic h a r e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld9

ha ve know n. ’ ” V i ny a r d v. W i l s on, 311 F . 3d 1340, 1346 ( 11 C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng th H a r l ow v. F i t z ge r a l d, 457 U . S . 800, 818, 102 S . C t . 2727, 2738 ( 1982) . T o be e n title d to q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity , th e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t p r o v e th a t h e w a s a c tin g w ith in the sc op e of hi s di sc re t i on ary autho ri ty. Id. “ O nce the defendant s e st abl i sh that the y w e r e a c t i ng w i thi n the i rdi s c r e t i ona ry a uthor i ty , the bur de n s hi f t s t o the pl a i nt i f f t o de m ons tr a t e tha tqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s notappr opr i a t e . ” L um l e y v. C i ty of D ade C i ty, 32 7 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 94 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). th T he S up re m e C ou rthas e st abl i shed a tw o-partt es tt o eval uat e w hether a n o ffi ci al i s en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty. F i rst , as a th resh o l d i n q u i ry, w e ad d ress w he the rthe f

a c t s pr e s e nt e d, t a ke n i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty , e s t abl i s h a c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on. S a uc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 201, 121 S . C t . 2 1 5 1 , 2 1 5 6 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . I f we a n s we rth i s q u e s t i o n i n th e a f f i r m a t i v e , th e n we “a s k w h e th e rth e r ig h t w a s c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d .” I d . B . D ep u ty B osti c’ s D i sc re ti on ary A u th ori ty G r a y a r g u e s th a t D e p u ty B o s tic w a s n o t a c tin g w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is di sc re t i on ary autho ri ty w hen h e det ai ned and hand cuff ed G ra y. “ T o est abl i sh that th e c h a lle n g e d a c tio n s w e r e w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is d is c r e tio n a ry a u th o r ity , a de f e nda ntm us ts how tha tthos e a c t i ons w e r e ( 1) unde r t a ke n pur s ua ntt o the p er fo rm an ce o f h is d u ti es , an d (2 ) w ith in th e s co p e o f h is au th o rity.” H ab er t In t’ l10

v . Jam es, 1 5 7 F . 3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 8 2 (1 1 C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). T o th aten d , “ a co u rtm u stask th w he the rthe a c tc om pl a i ne d of , i f done f ora pr ope rpurpos e , w oul d be w i thi n, or r e a s onabl y r e l a t e d t o, the out e rpe r i m e t e rof a n of f i c i a l ’ s di s c r e t i ona ry dut i e s . ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). A lth o u g h o u rp r io ro p in io n c o n c lu d in g th a t D e p u ty B o s tic w a s a c tin g w ith in h is d is c r e tio n a ry a u th o r ity w a s a t th e R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) s ta g e a n d w a s b a s e d o n m e r e ly the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nt , the r e i s no e vi de nc e a tthe s um m a ry j udgm e nt s t a ge tha tc ha nge s ourc onc l us i on. D e puty B os t i c a s a n S R O , w a s c ha r ge d w i th the r e s p o n s ib ility to in v e s tig a te c r im in a l a c tiv ity th a t m ig h t b e ta k in g p la c e a t H o lt E l e m e nt a ry S c hool . A s pa r tof tha tr e s pons i bi l i ty , D e puty B os t i c ’ s dut i e s i nc l ude d, u n d e rth e r ig h t c ir c u m s ta n c e s , d e ta in in g a n d q u e s tio n in g s tu d e n ts a n d p o s s ib ly a rr e s t i ng a nd ha ndc uf

f i ng the m . T he f

a c ttha tthe r i ghtc i r c um s t a nc e s ( f or d e te n tio n o rh a n d c u f

f in g ) m a y n o t h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t in th is c a s e is irr e le v a n t to ouri nqui ry . S e e i d. ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe “ i nqui ry i s notw he the ri tw a s w i thi n the defe nd ant ’ s autho ri ty t o com m i tthe al l egedl y i l l egal ac t ” bec ause “ [f ] ra m ed that w a y , th e in q u iry is n o m o r e th a n a n ‘u n te n ab le ’ ta u to lo g y ” ) . G ra y s tre ss es thatS R O s w er e notsupp osed t o d i sc i pl i ne stud ent s a nd that D e puty B os t i c a dm i tt e d i n hi s i nt e rr oga t ory r e s pons e s tha thi s r e a s ons f orde t a i ni ng a nd ha ndc uf

f i ng G r a y w e r e t o “ i m pr e s s upon he rthe s e r i ous na tur e of c om m i tt i ngAlthough Gray alleg es that Deputy

Bostic tightened the ha

ndcuff s enough to causeher 6 pain, she ha s not argued that the ha ndcuff ing c onstitut ed excessive f orceeven if

Deputy Bostic’ s stop was supported by

rea sonable suspicion. 11 cr i m es thatca n l ea d t o arr es t , det ent i on or i ncar ce ra t i on ” a nd “ t o h el p p er suade her t o ri d h er se l f of herdi sr es pect ful att i tud e. ” W e not e, ho w ever , thati ti s a l so cl ea r fr om D eputy B ost i c’ s i nt errogat ory r es po nses thathe bel i eved G ra y had com m i tt ed a m i sdem ea no r w hen she threa t ened her t ea cherand thatD eputy B ost i c det ai ned h erto d iscu ss th e in cid en t w ith h er . T h er ef o re , w e c o n clu d e th at D ep u ty B o stic’s ac t i on s w er e w i thi n h i s di sc re t i on ary dut i es and turn t o w hether hi s a ct i on s w er e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. C . C o ns t i t ut i o na lVi o l a t i o ns G ra y a rgues thatD eput y B ost i c use d exces si ve force i n d et ai ni ng her b e c a u s e h e la c k e d a r ig h t to d e ta in h e ra t a ll. T h e r e f o r e , h e re x c e s s iv e f

o r c e c la im is n o t a n in d e p e n d e n t c la im , b u t r a th e ris s u b s u m e d in h e rille g a l s e iz u r e c la im . S ee B as hi r v. R ockd al e C ou nty, 44 5 F . 3d 13 23 , 13 31 (11 C i r. 20 06 ) ( st at i ng that th “[ u ]n d e rth is C ir c u it’s la w . . . a c la im th a t a n y f o r c e in a n ille g a l s to p o ra rr e s t is e x c e s s iv e is s u b s u m e d in th e ille g a l s to p o ra rr e s t c la im a n d is n o t a d is c r e te e xc e s s i ve f

or c e c l a i m ” ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) ) . T hus , ouri nqui ry f oc us e s on 6 D ep u ty B o st i c’ s sei zu re o f G ray. A s s t at ed i n G ra y’ s e ar l i erappeal , w e app l y the re as on abl enes s s t andard12

a r t i c ul a t e d i n N e w J e r s e y v. T . L . O . , 469 U . S . 325, 341- 42, 105 S . C t . 733, 742- 43 ( 1985) , t o s c hool s e i z ur e s by l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s . S e e G r a y , N o. 04- 12240, s lip o p . a t 1 4 . I n T .L .O , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e s u b s ta n tia l n e e d to m a i nt a i n di s c i pl i ne i n the c l a s s r oom a nd f os t e ra pos i t i ve l e a rni ng e nvi r onm e nt “r e q u ir e s s o m e m o d if

ic a tio n o f

th e le v e l o f

s u s p ic io n o f

illic it a c tiv ity n e e d e d to j ust i fy a s ea rc h” i n the pu bl i c s choo l se tt i ng . Id. at34 0, 10 5 S . C t . at74 2. T o that end, the S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed that“ the ac com m od at i on of the pri vacy i nt er es t s of s choo l chi l dren w i th the subst ant i al need of t ea cher s a nd adm i ni stra t ors f orf r e e dom t o m a i nt a i n or de ri n the s c hool s doe s notr e qui r e s tr i c ta dhe r e nc e t o the re qu i re m entthatse ar ches be base d o n p robabl e c ause . ” I d. at34 1, 10 5 S . C t . at 74 2. Inst ea d, un der T . L . O . ’ s r ea sonabl enes s s t andard, “ the l egal i ty of ase ar ch of a stu d en tsh o u l d d ep en d si m p l y o n th e reaso n ab l en ess, u n d er al l th e ci rcu m st an ces, o f th e s e a r c h .” I d . U n d e rth e T .L .O s ta n d a r d , th e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f th e s e a r c h is e v a lu a te d u s in g a tw o - s te p in q u iry : “f ir s t, o n e m u s t c o n s id e r‘w h e th e rth e . . . a c t i on w a s j us t i f

i e d a ti t s i nc e pt i on’ ; s e c ond, one m us tde t e r m i ne w he the rthe se ar ch as ac tual l y c on du ct ed ‘ w as re as on abl y r el at ed i n scope t o the ci rc um st ance s w hi c h j us t i f

i e d i nt e r f e r e nc e i n the f

i r s tpl a c e . ’ ” I d. a t341, 105 S . C t . a t742- 43 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). T he T . L . O . st andard m i rr ors the st andard anno un ce d i n T erry v. O hi o gove rni ng the r e a s onabl e ne s s of i nve s t i ga t ory s t ops . S e e T e rry v. O hi o,Although de fenda nts claim Deputy

Bostic had probablecause , the conduc t in § 13A-11- 7 8 case s has been g enerally more e greg ious and has involved a credible thre at. See, e .g ., B.B . v. State, 863 So.2d 132, 135-36 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that a disruptive seventh grade student who threatened to kill his teacher violated § 13A- 11-8 where thestudent was ver y angry duringthe incident, uttere d the threat through clenc hed teeth and threwa desk across the room whilestating , “ Ihatethat te a c her, Ihatethat te a c her, ”and thete a c her a

nd ano ther witn e ss b oth testified that they

fea red thestudent would harm the teacher); Fallin v. C ity of Huntsville, 865 So.2d 473, 477 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (c oncludingthat defendant violated § 13A- 11-8 where de fendant, a

larg eman, wa s ye llingthre ats to h is da ughter’ s c he erl e a dingc oac h whil e 13 39 2 U . S . 1, 20 , 88 S . C t . 18 68 , 18 79 (196 8). U n d er T . L . O ’ s fi rstp ro n g , w e ex am i n e w h eth er D ep u ty B o st i c h as a re as on abl e bas i s f

or ca l l i ng G ra y over t o h i m , i . e. , st op pi ng her, and aski ng her que s t i ons . I ti s undi s put e d tha tD e puty B os t i c w i tne s s e d G r a y thr e a t e n t o do som ethi ng ph ys i ca l l y t o h ert ea cher . U nd erA l abam a C od e § 13 A -11-8, a verbal th r e a t, “m a d e w ith th e in te n t to c a rry o u t th e th r e a t, th a t w o u ld c a u s e a r e a s o n ab le pe r s on w ho i s the t a r ge tof the thr e a tt o f

e a rf orhi s orhe rs a f

e ty , ” c ons t i tut e s the c r i m e of ha r a s s m e nt , w hi c h i s a C l a s s C m i s de m e a nor . S e e A l a . C ode § 13A - 11- 8( a ) ( 1) - ( 3) . G r a y s tr e s s e s ne i the rC oa c h W i l l i a m s norC oa c h H or t on f e a r e d f or th e irs a f e ty a n d th a t D e p u ty B o s tic h a d n o p r o b ab le c a u s e o ra r g u ab le p r o b ab le c a us e t o a rr e s the r . H ow e ve r , unde rT . L . O . , the l e ve l of s us pi c i on i n a s c hool sett i n g n eed ed t o j u st i fy a search o r an i n v est i g at o ry st o p i s o n l y reaso n ab l en ess unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s . G i ve n hi s ha vi ng w i tne s s e d G r a y ’ s thr e a ti n a s c hool se tt i ng , D eputy B ost i c’ s s t op pi ng G ra y t o q uest i on her abo uther c on du ctw as re as on abl e. 7approachingher w ith waiving a rms and pointing f

ingers and the c oach a

nd other witnesse s testified that they

were af raid for their saf ety ). However, bec ause T.L .O. does not re quire proba ble ca use in a school se tting, weneed not reach the issue of

whether Deputy Bostic had probablecauseor arguable probable c ause. Se eDurr uthy v. Pa sto r, 35 1 F .3 d 1 08 0, 10 89 (1 1 Cir . 2 00 3) (e xplainingthat a sh ow ingof

on ly th arguable probable c ause is re quired to establish that an of ficer is entitled to qualified immunity). 14 T u rn in g to T .L .O ’s s e c o n d p r o n g , w e m u s t c o n s id e rw h e th e rD e p u ty B os t i c ’ s s ubs e que ntha ndc uf f i ng of G r a y “ w a s r e a s onabl y r e l a t e d t o the s c ope of the c i r c um s t a nc e s w hi c h j us t i f i e d the i nt e r f

e r e nc e i n the f

i r s tpl a c e . ” I d. a t341, 10 5 S . C t . at74 3 (qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed and em ph as i s s up pl i ed). “ [A se i zure ] w i l l be perm i ss i bl e i n i t s s cope w hen the m ea sure s a do pt ed ar e r ea sonabl y r el at ed t o the obj e c t i ve s of

the [ s e i z ur e ] a nd note xc e s s i ve l y i ntrus i ve i n l i ghtof the a ge a nd s e x of

the s tude nta nd the na tur e of the i nf r a c t i on. ” T . L . O . , 469 U . S . a t342, 10 5 S . C t . at74 3. A ft erst op pi ng G ra y, D eputy B ost i c noton l y quest i on ed her, buta l s o ha ndc uf

f e d he rf ornotl e s s tha n f

i ve m i nut e s . T hus , the que s t i on unde rthe s e c o n d p r o n g is w h e th e rth e h a n d c u f f in g o f n in e - y e a r - o ld G r a y w a s r e a s o n ab ly re l at ed t o the sc op e of the ci rc um st ance s w hi ch j ust i fi ed D eputy B ost i c’ s i ni t i al i nt er fe re nce a nd w as no texce ss i vel y i ntrusi ve. B y hi s ow n adm i ss i on , D eputy B ost i c di d n othand cuff G ra y t o eff

ec tan a rr e s t o f G r a y . R a th e r , h is h a n d c u f f in g o f G r a y w a s d u r in g a n in v e s tig a to ry s to p . N on ethel es s, du ri ng an i nv es t i gat ory s t op , an offi ce r c an st i l l hand cuff a det ai nee w h e n th e o f

f ic e rr e a s o n ab ly b e lie v e s th a t th e d e ta in e e p r e s e n ts a p o te n tia l th r e a t to15

sa fe ty. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. H as t am ori r, 88 1 F . 2d 15 51 , 15 57 (11 C i r. 19 89 ); th U ni t ed S t at es v. B l ac km an, 66 F . 3d 15 72 , 15 76 -77 (11 C i r. 19 95 ); U ni t ed S t at es th v. K apperm an, 76 4 F . 2d 78 6, 79 0-91 & n. 4 (11 C i r. 19 85 ). th T h e p r o b le m in th is c a s e f o rD e p u ty B o s tic is th a t, a t th e tim e D e p u ty B o s tic h a n d c u f f e d G r a y , th e r e w a s n o in d ic a tio n o f a p o te n tia l th r e a t to a n y o n e ’s s a f e ty . T h e in c id e n t w a s o v e r , a n d G r a y , a f te rm a k in g th e c o m m e n t, h a d p r o m p tly c o m p lie d w ith h e rte a c h e r s ’ in s tru c tio n s , c o m in g to th e g y m w a ll a n d th e n to C oa c h H or t on w he n t ol d t o do s o. T he r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tG r a y w a s ge s tur i ng or engagi ng i n any further di srup t i ve behavi or. R ather, G ra y had coop er at ed w i th h er t ea cher s a nd di d n otpo se a threa tt o anyon e’ s s af ety. In fa ct , C oach H ort on had in s is te d th a t s h e w o u ld h a n d le th e m a tte r , b u t D e p u ty B o s tic s till in te r v e n e d . D e puty B os t i c doe s note ve n c l a i m tha the ha ndc uf f e d G r a y t o pr ot e c thi s or anyone’ s s af

ety. R ather, D eputy B ost i c c andi dl y a dm i tt ed thathe hand cuff ed G ra y t o pe r s ua de he rt o ge tr i d of he rdi s r e s pe c t f

ul a tt i tude a nd t o i m pr e s s upon he rthe s e r i ous na tur e of

c om m i tt i ng c r i m e s . I n e f f e c t , D e puty B os t i c ’ s ha ndc uf f i ng of G ra y w as hi s a tt em ptt o p un i sh G ra y i n o rdert o chang e herbehavi or i n the future. T hus , D e puty B os t i c ’ s ha ndc uf f i ng G r a y w a s notr e a s onabl y r e l a t e d t o the s c ope of the c i r c um s t a nc e s tha tj us t i f i e d the i ni t i a l i nve s t i ga t ory s t op. R a the r , the h a n d c u f f in g w a s e x c e s s iv e ly in tru s iv e g iv e n G r a y ’s y o u n g a g e a n d th e f a c t th a t it16

w as no tdo ne t o p rot ec tanyone’ s s af ety. T here fore , the hand cuff i ng of G ra y v i o l at ed G ray’ s F o u rth A m en d m en tri g h t s. D . C l e ar l y E s t ab l i s h e d L aw W he the ra c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtw a s “ c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d” a tthe t i m e of the v io la tio n tu rn s o n “‘w h e th e rit w o u ld b e c le a rto a r e a s o n ab le o f f ic e rth a t h is c onduc tw a s unl a w f

ul i n the s i tua t i on he c onf r ont e d. ’ ” B a s hi r , 445 F . 3d a t1330 ( quot i ng S a uc i e r , 533 U . S . a t202, 121 S . C t . a t2156) . W e f oc us on the s t a tus of th e la w in M a r c h 2 0 0 3 w h e n D e p u ty B o s tic d e ta in e d a n d h a n d c u f f e d G r a y . Iti s w el l se tt l ed that , un der the F ou rth A m endm ent , “ [t ] he sc op e of a de t e nt i on m us tbe c a r e f

ul l y t a i l or e d t o i t s unde r l y i ng j us t i f i c a t i on” a nd tha tthe

“ i nve s t i ga t ory m e thods e m pl oy e d [ dur i ng a de t e nt i on] s houl d be the l e a s ti ntrus i ve m ea ns re as on abl y a vai l abl e t o v er i fy or di spel the offi ce r’ s s uspi ci on i n a short pe r i od of t i m e . ” F l or i da v. R oy e r , 460 U . S . 491, 500, 103 S . C t . 1319, 1325- 26 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A s w e h a v e a lr e a d y d is c u s s e d , th is C o u r t h a s lo n g c o n c lu d e d th a t it is re as on abl e f

or offi ce rs t o u se hand cuff s t o p rot ec tthem se l ves duri ng an i nve s t i ga t i ve de t e nt i on. S e e H a s t a m or i r , 881 F . 2d 1556- 57; K appe r m a n, 764 F . 2d a t790 n. 4. H ow e ve r , G r a y doe s notc i t e a nd w e c a nnotl oc a t e a c a s e a ddr e s s i ng be f or e t oda y w he n i tm a y be r e a s onabl e t o us e ha ndc uf f s i n a n i nve s t i ga t ory s t op abs e nta s a f

e ty r a t i ona l e . T hus , no f a c tua l l y s i m i l a rpr e - e xi s t i ng c a s e l a w put17

D eputy B ost i c on n ot i ce thathi s use of hand cuff s t o d i sc i pl i ne G ra y w as o b j ect i v el y u n reaso n ab l e fo r F o u rth A m en d m en tp u rp o ses. H o w e v e r , o u rin q u iry d o e s n o t e n d h e r e . E v e n in th e ab s e n c e o f f a c tu a lly s im ila rc a s e la w , a n o f

f ic ia l c a n h a v e f

a irw a rn in g th a t h is c o n d u c t is u n c o n s titu tio n a l w h e n th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n is o b v io u s , s o m e tim e s r e f e rr e d to a s “ o b v i o u s c l a r i ty ” c a s e s . Se e U n i t e d St a t e s v . La n i e r , 5 2 0 U . S. 2 5 9 , 2 7 1 , 1 1 7 S. C t . 1219, 1227 ( 1997) ( “ [ A ] ge ne r a l c ons t i tut i ona l rul e a l r e a dy i de nt i f i e d i n the de c i s i ona l l a w m a y appl y w i th obvi ous c l a r i ty t o the s pe c i f i c c onduc ti n que s t i on, e v e n th o u g h th e v e ry a c tio n in q u e s tio n h a s [ n o t] b e e n p r e v io u s ly h e ld u n la w f u l.” (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed)) ; V i nyar d v . W i l son, 31 1 F . 3d 13 40 , 13 50 -51 (11 C i r. th 20 02 ). T he F ou rth A m endm ent ’ s gener al proscr i pt i on agai nst“ un re as on abl e” se i zure s s el do m pu t s off i ce rs on no t i ce thatce rt ai n con du cti s unl aw ful un der pr e c i s e c i r c um s t a nc e s . E va ns v. S t e phe ns , 407 F . 3d 1272, 1283 ( 11 C i r . 2005) th ( e n b a n c ) . N o n e th e le s s , o n r a r e o c c a s io n w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t g e n e r a l F o u r th A m en d m en tp ri n ci p l es m ak e th e co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n o b v i o u s. S ee, e. g . , E v an s, 40 7 F . 3d at12 83 (c on cl ud i ng thatthe const i tut i on al vi ol at i on w as ob vi ou s w here a n of f i c e rc onduc t e d body c a vi ty s e a r c he s i n a de gr a di ng a nd f or c e f ul m a nne ra nd w he n the r e w a s no ne e d f ori m m e di a t e a c t i on) ; V i ny a r d, 311 F . 3d a t135518

(c on cl ud i ng thatthe const i tut i on al vi ol at i on w as ob vi ou s w here the offi ce r grabb ed the arre st ee by the hai r a nd arm and app l i ed pepp erspra y a ft ershe had been ha ndc uf f e d a nd s e c ur e d i n the ba c k of the pa tr ol c a r ) ; L e e v. F e rr a r o, 284 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 98 -99 (11 C i r. 20 02 ) ( concl ud i ng thatthe const i tut i on al vi ol at i on w as th r e a di l y appa r e ntw he r e a n of f i c e rs l a m m e d the a rr e s t e e ’ s he a d a ga i ns tthe trunk af t ershe w as hand cuff

ed, se cure d and any r i sk of dang eror fl i gh thad p as se d); P r i e s t e rv. C i ty of

R i vi e r a B e a c h, 208 F . 3d 919, 927 ( 11 C i r . 2000) ( c onc l udi ng th th a t th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n w a s o b v io u s w h e r e a n o f f ic e rp e r m itte d h is d o g to a tta c k a h a n d c u f

f e d , c o m p lia n t a rr e s te e f o rtw o m in u te s a n d th e n th r e a te n e d to k ill th e arrestee w h en h e k i ck ed th e d o g i n an effo rtt o resi stth e att ack ). In th ese cases, th e o f f ic e r ’s c o n d u c t a t is s u e la y “s o o b v io u s ly a t th e v e ry c o r e o f w h a t th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r o h ib its th a t th e u n la w f u ln e s s o f th e c o n d u c t w a s r e a d ily ap p a r e n t to [ hi m ] notw i ths t a ndi ng the l a c k of [ f a c t - s pe c i f

i c ] c a s e l a w . ” L e e , 284 F . 3d a t1199 (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). P u tan o th er w ay, th e o ffi cer’s co n d u cti n th ese ca se s w as “ w el l beyond the ‘ hazy bo rder ’ thatsom et i m es se para t es l aw ful cond uct f r om unl a w f

ul c onduc t , ” s uc h tha te ve ry obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e of f i c e rw oul d ha ve know n tha tthe c onduc tw a s unl a w f ul . E va ns , 407 F . 3d a t1283. W e l i kew i se concl ud e thatD eputy B ost i c’ s c on du cti n h andcuffi ng G ra y, a c om pl i a nt , ni ne - y e a r - ol d gi r l f orthe s ol e purpos e of

puni s hi ng he rw a s a n obvi ous19

vi ol at i on of G ra y’ s F ou rth A m endm entri gh t s. A ft erm aki ng the com m ent , G ra y ha d c om pl i e d w i th he rt e a c he r s ’ a nd D e puty B os t i c ’ s i ns truc t i ons . I nde e d, one of the t ea cher s had i nform ed D eputy B ost i c thatshe w ou l d h andl e the m att er . In addi t i on , D eputy B ost i c’ s purpo se i n h andcuffi ng G ra y w as no tt o p ursue a n i nve s t i ga t i on t o c onf

i r m ordi s pe l hi s s us pi c i ons tha tG r a y ha d c om m i tt e d a m is d e m e a n o r . R a th e r , D e p u ty B o s tic ’s p u rp o s e in h a n d c u f f in g G r a y w a s s im p ly to pu ni sh her a nd t ea ch her a l es son. E very re as on abl e off i ce r w ou l d h ave kno w n that h a n d c u f f in g a c o m p lia n t n in e - y e a r - o ld c h ild f o rp u r e ly p u n itiv e p u rp o s e s is un re as on abl e. W e e m ph as i ze thatthe C ou rti s notsa yi ng thatthe use of handcuffs dur i ng a n i nve s t i ga t ory s t op of a ni ne - y e a r - ol d c hi l d i s a l w a y s unr e a s onabl e , but j ustun re as on abl e und erthe part i cul arfa ct s of thi s c as e. T he r e f or e , D e puty B os t i c i s note nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , a nd the di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n h i s f avor. E . S h e r i f

f S e xt on G r a y a lle g e s th a t S h e r if f S e x to n f a ile d to tr a in a n d s u p e r v is e a d e q u a te ly D e puty B os t i c on the pr ope rus e of f or c e i n thi s e l e m e nt a ry s c hool s e tt i ng. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d G r a y ’ s of f i c i a l c apa c i ty c l a i m a ga i ns tS he r i f f S e xt on w i th o u tch al l en g e. T h u s, al l th atrem ai n s i s h er i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty cl ai m ag ai n st S heri ff S ext on as D eputy B ost i c’ s s up ervi sor.F or thi s re a so n, were

je c t Gra y ’sargument t

hat Sh e ri ff

Se xton c an b ehe ld l ia

ble 8 be c a us e , und e r A la

bama law, a deputy sh e ri ff is t heag e nt a

nd alter e g o o f t

hesh e ri ff . T o h old S h eri ff S ex t o nl i ab l e f

o r D ep uty Bo s t i c’ s al l ege d

co n s t i tut i o n al v i o l at i o nun d er anal t er ego th e o r y w o u l d am o untt o re s p o n d e ats u

p e ri o r l i a b i l i ty. 20 S upe r vi s ory of

f i c i a l s c a nnotbe he l d l i abl e unde r§ 1983 f orthe unc ons t i tut i ona l a c t i ons of the i rs ubor di na t e s ba s e d on r e s ponde a ts upe r i or l i abi l i ty . H a r t l e y v. P a rne l l , 193 F . 3d 1263, 1269 ( 11 C i r . 1999) . I ns t e a d, th 8 s u p e r v is o r s c a n b e h e ld p e r s o n a lly liab le w h e n e ith e r( 1 ) th e s u p e r v is o rp e r s o n a lly part i ci pat es i n the al l eged const i tut i on al vi ol at i on , or (2) there i s acausal conn ec t i on betw ee n the ac t i on s of the supervi sor a nd the al l eged const i tut i on al v io la tio n . I d . G r a y d o e s n o t a lle g e th a t S h e r if f S e x to n p e r s o n a lly p a r tic ip a te d in he rha ndc uf

f e d de t e nt i on. T hus , G r a y a tt e m pt s t o us e the s e c ond m e thod. U nd erthe se cond m etho d, “ [t ] he causal conn ec t i on ca n b e e st abl i shed w hen a hi st ory of w i despre ad abuse put s the re spon si bl e s up ervi sor on n ot i ce of the need t o c orr e c tthe a l l e ge d de pr i va t i on, a nd he f a i l s t o do s o. ” I d. ( quot i ng B r ow n v. C r a w f o r d , 9 0 6 F .2 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . F u r th e r m o r e , to b e s u f f ic ie n t to th n o t i fy th e su p erv i so r, th e d ep ri v at i o n s m u stn o to n l y b e w i d esp read , th ey al so

“ m ustbe ob vi ou s, fl agra nt , ra m pantand o f c on t i nu ed du ra t i on , ra ther than i sol at ed occurre nces . ” I d. (quo t i ng B row n, 90 6 F . 2d at67 1). T here i s no evi dence i n the re cord of w i despre ad and o bv i ou s handcuffed d e t e n t i o n s o f

s tu d e n t s b y D e p u ty Bo s t i c o ro th e rd e p u ty s h e r i f f s . Th e r e w a s s o me21

vagu e, ar gu abl y hea rs ay t es t i m on y by C oach H ort on thatshe had heard that D e p u ty B o s tic o n c e p la c e d a n o th e rH o lt E le m e n ta ry s tu d e n t in h a n d c u f f s . H ow ever , there i s no evi dence thatS heri ff S ext on w as aw ar e of thi s a l l eged in c id e n t. F u r th e r m o r e , th is o n e is o la te d in c id e n t, o f w h ic h th e r e a r e n o d e ta ils , is no tsuff i ci entt o p utS heri ff

S ext on on no t i ce thatD eputy B ost i c nee ded add i t i on al tr a in in g o rs u p e rv is io n o n th e u s e o f f o r c e w h e n d e ta in in g m in o r s . W e a l so re cogn i ze thatG ra y a l l eges thatS heri ff S ext on i nst i tut ed a pol i cy i ns truc t i ng de put i e s t o de t a i n, ha ndc uf f , a rr e s ta nd i nc a r c e r a t e i ndi vi dua l s w ho w e r e nots us pe c t e d of

c om m i tt i ng a c r i m e . T he r e i s no e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d, h o w e v e r , th a t S h e r if

f S e x to n in s titu te d s u c h a p o lic y o ra n y o th e rp o lic y th a t w o u ld have l ed D eput y B ost i c t o b el i eve thathe coul d d et ai n a stud enti n h andcuffs ab s e n t s a f

e ty c o n c e rn s . F i na l l y , G r a y e m pha s i z e s tha tD e puty B os t i c r e c e i ve d no tr a i ni ng s pe c i f i c a l l y a ddr e s s i ng the de t e nt i on of s tude nt s . S he c ont e nds tha tS he r i f f S e xt on shou l d h ave f

ores ee n thatun w arra nt ed hand cuff ed det ent i on s of s tud ent s w er e “b o u n d to h ap p e n ” w ith o u t s u c h tr a in in g . T h u s , G r a y is a r g u in g th a t th e n e e d to tra i n w as “ so ob vi ou s” thatthe fa i l ure t o d o so con st i tut ed del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence w i tho utpri or no t i ce . S ee G ol d v . C i ty of M i am i , 15 1 F . 3d 13 46 , 13 52 (11 C i r. th 19 98 ) ( addres si ng m un i ci pal l i abi l i ty f or fa i l ure t o tra i n).22

T he S upr e m e C our tha s “ hy pothe s i z e d tha t , i n a na rr ow r a nge of c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a v io la tio n o f f e d e r a l r ig h ts m a y b e a h ig h ly p r e d ic tab le c o n s e q u e n c e o f

a f a ilu r e to e q u ip la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s w ith s p e c if

ic to o ls to ha ndl e r e c urr i ng s i tua t i ons . ” I d. ( quot i ng B d. of C ounty C om m ’ r s v. B r ow n, 520 U .S . 3 9 7 , 4 0 9 , 1 1 7 S . C t. 1 3 8 2 , 1 3 9 1 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . H o w e v e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s o n ly exam pl e of a n o bv i ou s tra i ni ng need w as the use of deadl y f orce w hen p ol i ce of f i c e r s a r e gi ve n f

i r e a r m s . W e ha ve a l r e a dy de t e r m i ne d tha tthe ne e d f ortr a i ni ng r e ga r di ng the pr ope rus e of ha ndc uf f s i s “ ‘ [ u] nl i ke the r i s k f

r om a pa r t i c ul a rgl a r i ng o m is s io n in a tr a in in g r e g im e n ,’” a n d is in s te a d a r is k f r o m a “p o s s ib le i m pe r f e c t i on[ ] , . . . i n . . . tr a i ni ng a nd s upe r vi s i on” tha ti s “ ‘ notobvi ous i n the abstra ct . ’ ” I d. at13 52 (quo t i ng i n p artB row n, 52 0 U . S . at40 9, 11 7 S . C t . at 1 3 9 1 ) . W e s i m i l a r l y c onc l ude tha tthe ne e d f ortr a i ni ng r e ga r di ng the de t e nt i on of s tu d e n ts s p e c if

ic a lly is n o t o b v io u s in th e ab s tr a c t a n d th a t a la c k o f s u c h tr a in in g is a “p o s s ib le im p e r f

e c tio n ,” b u t n o t a “g la r in g o m is s io n ” f r o m a tr a in in g r e g im e n . D ep u ty B o st i c received trai n i n g , atb o th th e p o l i ce acad em y an d th e T u scal o o sa C ounty S he r i f

f’ s D e pa r tm e nt , on the pr ope rus e of f or c e a nd the pr i nc i pl e s of pr obabl e c a us e . T he f

a i l ur e t o pr ovi de s pe c i f

i c tr a i ni ng r e ga r di ng the de t e nt i on of s tude nt s , i n a ddi t i on t o ge ne r a l tr a i ni ng r e ga r di ng us e of f or c e dur i ng de t e nt i on a ndGra y cites no ca se law or

statute that required Sheriff Sex ton to train SROs, such as 9 Deputy Bostic, on how to detain students. There fore , the law wa s not “clea rly established” f

or purp os e s o f q

ualif ie d immunity

su c h th at a

re a so na bleof fi c ial in Sheri ff Se xton’ s sh oe s w ould have known that the failure to provide suc h trainingconstituted deliberate indifference . See Riley v. Newton , 9 4 F .3 d 6 32 , 6 37 (1 1 Cir . 1 99 6) (c on c ludingthat sh e ri ff wa s entitle d to th qualified immunity

on failure -to-train claim where plaintiffs failed to cite ca se law or constitutional provision requiringsheriff to provide trainingon how to use Army personne l and re je c tingplaintif

fs ’ a rgument t hat Cit y of Canto n’ s g e neral st andard of lia bil ity in f ailureto t rain case s clea rly established the right) . Generally, the denial of

summary judgment on a claim for

injunctive relief

is not a final 10 appealable dec ision. S witzerland CheeseAss’n, Inc. v. E. Hor ne’s Ma rket, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25, 87 S. Ct . 193, 195 (1966). How ever , “[u] nder thependant a ppellate jurisdiction doctrine , we 23 a rr e s t , w a s not“ s o l i ke l y ” t o r e s ul ti n the vi ol a t i on of s tude nt s ’ F our th A m e ndm e nt r ig h ts th a t S h e r if

f S e x to n r e a s o n ab ly c a n b e s a id to h a v e b e e n d e lib e r a te ly i nd i ff er entt o the need for thi s part i cul ar i ze d tra i ni ng w i tho utany pri or no t i ce . S ee C i ty of C a nt on v. H a rr i s , 489 U . S . 378, 390- 92, 109 S . C t . 1197, 1205- 07 ( 1989) ( f i ndi ng no obvi ous ne e d t o tr a i n j a i l s upe r vi s or s r e ga r di ng w he n t o pr ovi de m e di c a l tr e a tm e ntbe y ond f i r s ta i d) ; G ol d, 151 F . 3d a t1352; Y oung v. C i ty of A u g u s ta , 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 7 2 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( f in d in g n o o b v io u s n e e d to tr a in th j a i l e r s r e ga r di ng m e di c a l tr e a tm e ntf orm e nt a l i l l ne s s e s a nd di s pe ns i ng of pres cr i bed m edi ca t i on ). A cc ordi ng l y, S heri ff S ext on w as ent i t l ed t o sum m ary 9 j u d g m en ti n h i s i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty. F . In ju n ct i ve R el i ef D e f e nda nt s a l s o a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o gr a nt s um m a ry j udgm e nton G r a y ’ s c l a i m f ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

a ga i ns tS he r i f

f S e xt on. 10may

addre ss [ otherwise] nonappe alable orders if they are‘inextricably

intertwined’ with an appealable dec ision.” Hudson v. Hall, 231 F.3d 1289, 1294 ( 11 Cir. 2000) (quotation marks th omitte d) . H e re , Gra

y ’sc laim f

or inj un c tiv ere lie f a

nd Sheri ff Se xton’ s a

rgument t hat heis entitled to qualified immunity areinextrica

bly intertwined be causeboth turn on whether Sheriff Sex ton has implemented an unc onstitut ional policy or custom. See Moniz v. City of F ort L a ud e rdale , 1 45 F .3 d 1 27 8, 12 81 n. 3 ( 11 Cir . 1 99 8) (c on c ludingthat th eiss ue s a reine xtri c a

bly th intertwined when the cour t, in resolving thequalified immunity issue, also reaches themerits of the penda nt claim). 24 S p ec ifically, G ra y’s in

ju n ctiv e r elief c laim se ek s a d ec lara ti o n th at S h er iff S ex to n ’s c u s to m o rp o lic y o f

f a ilin g to tr a in d e p u tie s o n th e d e te n tio n o f s tu d e n ts is unc ons t i tut i ona l a nd s e e ks t o e nj oi n S he r i f f S e xt on f r om c ont i nui ng t o i m pl e m e nt thatcust om or po l i cy . H ow ever , there i s no evi dence of an uncon st i tut i on al po l i cy orc us t om i m pl e m e nt e d by S he r i f f S e xt on. T he r e f

or e , G r a y ’ s c l a i m f

ori nj unc t i ve r e lie f a g a in s t S h e r if

f S e x to n a ls o n e c e s s a r ily f a ils . A c c o r d in g ly , S h e r if f S e x to n is ent i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm enton G ra y’ s c l ai m for i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . I V . CONCL US I ON F or the forgoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of sum m ary j ud gm enton G ra y’ s i l l egal se i zure cl ai m agai nstD eputy B ost i c i n h i s i nd i vi du al c ap a c i ty , r e v e r s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f s u mma ry j u d g me n to n G r a y ’ s c l a i ms a g a in s t S h e r if

f S e x to n a n d o n h e rs e p a r a te e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im a g a in s t D e p u ty B os t i c , a nd r e m a nd f

orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. AF F I RME D I N P AR T ; RE V E RS E D I N P AR T AN D R E MAND .