FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 20, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 22 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cv -0 15 45 -IPJ

JERRY SIMS , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us JAM ES LEONARD, HUNTSVILLE, CITY OF, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 20 , 20 12 )Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Pro ceed in g p ro se, J erry Sim s ap pe al s the gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t o n bo th hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n a ga in stOffic er J am es Leon ardforhi s al le ge d u se of ex ces si ve for ce, an d h is st at e la w cla im s o f as saul t an d b at te ry ag ai ns t Leo na rd an d t he Cit y

of Hu nt sv il le , Alab am a. Sim s cl ai m s erro r in th e g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s; th e cl os in g o f hi s ca se ; an d t he de ni al , as m oo t, o f hi s po st -jud gm en t m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we rev ers e an d re m an d.

“ Thi s co urt re vi ews de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt's gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t ba se d o n t he de fen se of qua li fie d i m m un it y .” Hol m es v. Ku cynd a, 32 1 F .3d10 69 , 10 77 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Und er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 6, s umm ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e th e m ov in g p arty “ sh ows th atth ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact . . . . ” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (a). We accep t the pl ai nt iff’s ve rs io n o f th e fac ts an d draw al l ju st ifi ab le in fere nc es inhi s fa vo r. Po urm og ha ni –Es fah an i v . Gee, 62 5 F .3d13 13 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m); s ee Co tt rel l v . Cal dwe ll , 85 F.3d14 80 , 14 86 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (“ [W] ha t i s co ns id eredto be th e ‘facts ’ atth e su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge m ay no t turn o utto be th e actua l fa ct s i f th e cas e g oe s t o t ria l, b utth os e are th e fac ts at t hi s s ta ge of t he 2pr oc eed in g fo r su m m ary jud gm en t p ur

po se s.”) . A su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n c anbe op po se d “ by any of t he ki nd s o f ev id en ti ary m at eri al s l is te d i n R ul e 5 6( c), ex cep t the m ere p le ad in gs th em se lv es , an d i t i s fr om

th is li stth aton e wou ldno rm al ly exp ectth e n on m ov in g p arty to m ak e” the ne ces sa ry

sh owi ng . Celo te x C or

p. v . Catret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 24 , 10 6 S . Ct . 25 48 , 25 53 (19 86 ). 1 Tho ug h t he Dis tri ctCo urt qui te rig ht ly recog ni zedth e la ckof a ny

“pr oc edur al to ol fora de fau ltsu m m ary jud gm en t,” we n ev erthe le ss co nc lu de th at th e jud gm en t en te redth ere a m ou nt edto a de fau lt . In d eci di ng Sim s’s § 19 83 cl ai m , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d: “ Bec au se [Si m s] has fai le d t o re sp on d t o t he de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, h e ne ces sa ri lyha s fa il edinhi s b ur de n to sh ow tha t qua li fie d i m m un it y is no t ap pr op ria te ” (em

ph as is ad de d) . Sim il arl y , with re sp ectto Sim s’s as saul t an d b at te ry cla im , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d: “ Bec au se [Si m s] fai le d t o re sp on d t o t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t, thi s cl ai m ne ces sa ri lyfai ls ,” (em ph as is ad de d) . W e rec og ni ze tha t the di st ric t co urt d idev al ua te Sim s’s d ep os it io n. See F ed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1) ( “A pa rty asser ting that a fac t cannot be or

is ge nuinely 1 disputed must support the assertion by : (A) c iting to par ticular pa rts of materials in the rec ord, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or de clar ations, stipulations (including those made for pur poses of the motion only), admissions, interrog atory answe rs, or other

materia ls”). 3Howev er, thi s ev al ua ti on ne gl ect edto in cl ud e so m e o f Si m s’s t es ti m on y whi ch m us t b e cre di te d b ecau se we are re qu ire d t o a ccep t Si m s’s “ ve rs io n o f th e fac ts dr awin g a ll jus ti fiabl e in fere nc es in[hi s] fav or .” Po urm og ha ni – Es fah an i, 6 25 F.3 d a t 1 31 5; see Bro wn v . Cit y of Hu nt sv il le , Ala., 6 08 F.3d72 4, 7 28 , 73 8– 40 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (rev ie win g the “ [p ]lain ti ff’s v ers io n o f ev en ts ,” an d h ol di ng th at th e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g qua li fie d i m m un it y for a § 1 98 3 e xc es si ve for ce cl ai m). The d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t, s in ce Si m s t es ti fie d tha t h e d idno t s ee wh o hi t h is leg , he c ou ldno t es tabl is h t he cla im ag ai ns t Offi cer Leo na rd . Yet, in ot he r po rti on s o f hi s d ep os it io n, Si m s t es ti fie d tha t Offi cer Leo na rdhi t h is leg , andhe cl ari fie d t ha t h e kne w th is be cau se Leon ardwas t he on ly pers on clo se en ou gh to hi m to ha ve do ne it . Sim s s ta te d: “ th e o nl y sp otwher e th e h itcam e fro m was whe re Offi cer Leo na rdwas.” Tho ug h S im s m ig htno t h av e se enLeon ardhi t h im , we m us t n ev erthe le ss m ak e th e rea so nabl e in fere nc e fro m Sim s’s t es ti m on y

th at Leo nardhi t Si m s. Inou r vi ew, to st at e th ata pa rty’ s cl ai m “ ne ces saril y ” fai ls be cau se th at pa rty has “ fai le d t o re sp on d” to a di sp os it iv e m ot io n re su lt s i n t he im po si ti on of a de fau ltjud gm en t. By en te rin g ju dg m en t h ere, the di st ric t co urt i m po se d a requi rem en t tha t Si m s es tabl is h a“ le ga l fa ct ,” th atth e d efen da nt s’ con du ct vi ol at ed“ cl earl y

est ab li sh ed ” co ns ti tu ti on al pri nc ip le s; bu t Si m s n eed edon ly to 4sh ow fa ct s co ns ti tu ti ng a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Se e Eld er v . Hol lo way , 51 0

U.S. 51 0, 5 16 , 11 4 S . Ct. 1 01 9, 1 02 3 (1 99 4) (“ Whe th er an ass ert edfed eral rig ht was cle arl y

est ab li sh edat apa rti cu la r ti m e, . . ., pr es en ts a qu es ti on of l aw, no t o ne of ‘ le ga l fa ct s.’”). The c ou rt m us t the n e va lu at e th os e fac ts to de te rm in e whe th er, as a m atte r of

law, the all eg edco nduc t was “ cl earl y est ab li sh ed ” as a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a t the ti m e itoc cu rred . See Mi tc he ll v. Fo rs yth , 47 2 U.S. 5 11 , 52 8, 1 05 S. Ct . 28 06 , 28 16 (19 85 ) (“ All [a co urt] nee d d et erm in e is a qu es ti on of l aw: whe th er the leg al no rm s al le ge dl y vi ol at edby the de fen da ntwere cl earl y es tabl is he d a t the ti m e o f th e ch al le ng edact io ns . . .”); s ee al so Eld er, 5 10 U.S. at 51 6 (“ A cou rt e ng ag in g i n re vi ew of a qu al ifi edimm

un it y jud gm en t s ho ul d th eref or e u se it s fu ll kn owl ed ge of i ts own[an d o th er re le vant ] pr eced en ts .” (b rack et s i n o rig in al )). As a re su lt , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ad equa te ly credi t the ot he r ev id en ce pr es en te d b y

Sim s, i n p art ic ul ar h is de po si ti on tes ti m on y . The ev id en ce p ut fo rwardby Sim s co nt ai ns fact s t ha t, wh envi ewedinhi s favo r, m ay est ab li sh de fen da nt s’ vi ol at io n o f a cl earl y est ab li sh edco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . W e wil l af

fo rdth e d is tri ctco urt an op po rtu ni ty to en ga ge inth is m or e co m pr eh en si ve an al y si s i n t he fir stin st an ce, ex am in in g wh ethe r th e ev id en ce sh ows th atth ere r em ai ns a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factan d wh ethe r Si m s’s cl ai m 5su rv iv es th e d efen da nt s’ ass ert io n o f qu al ifi edimm un it y . REVERSED AND REMANDED

6