[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15393

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-21766-JLK

ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CITY OF SWEETWATER,

a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al.,

 Defendants,

PAUL ABREU, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 27, 2015)

Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a police officer’s interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of 

his motion for summary judgment in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Paul Abreu, a police officer for the City of Sweetwater, Florida, argues that he was 

entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff Alberto Dominguez’s excessive force 

claim because, according to Officer Abreu, video evidence showed 

incontrovertibly that Mr. Dominguez was behaving in a threatening manner toward 

him before he forcibly maneuvered Mr. Dominguez to the floor inside the 

Sweetwater police station. After reviewing this video evidence, however, we agree 

with the district court that a genuine dispute of material fact exists over whether 

Mr. Dominguez resisted or threatened Officer Abreu in any way.

“We have repeatedly ruled that a police officer violates the Fourth 

Amendment, and is denied qualified immunity, if he or she uses gratuitous and 

excessive force against a suspect who is under control, not resisting, and obeying 

commands.” Saunders v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing cases 

dating back to 2000). Because the facts as construed in Mr. Dominguez’s favor 

establish that he was handcuffed and compliant,

1 there is, consequently, a triable 

 1 “We review de novo the district court’s disposition of a summary judgment motion based on 

qualified immunity, resolving all issues of material fact in favor of [the plaintiff] and then 

answering the legal question of whether [the defendant is] entitled to qualified immunity under 

Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

issue whether Officer Abreu’s aggressive takedown action was “gratuitous and 

constitutionally excessive.” Id. at 1270.

Officer Abreu’s argument that he used only de minimis force has no merit. 

Although the use of de minimis force during a valid seizure cannot give rise to an 

excessive force claim, Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000), 

Officer Abreu cannot cite to any authority suggesting that the level of force he 

used was de minimis in the context of a compliant suspect who is securely in 

custody. At best, the line of authority to which he cites approves of only a minor 

push or shove in such circumstances. See, e.g., Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 

F.3d 1552, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1993), modified, 14 F.3d 583 (11th Cir. 1994); see 

also Mobley v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 783 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 

2015) (per curiam) (“Our decisions demonstrate that the point at which a suspect is 

handcuffed and poses no risk of danger to the officer often is the pivotal point for 

excessive-force claims.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Our 

case law does not support extending qualified immunity where the level of force 

used against a secured, compliant suspect was analogous to the aggressive 

takedown that occurred here. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order denying 

Officer Abreu’s motion for summary judgment, Dominguez v. City of Sweetwater, 

 

that version of the facts.” Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

No. 13-CV-21766, 2014 WL 5529646 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2014), for the reasons 

articulated in the order.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 4 of 4