### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A pr i l 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 13477

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3
- 0 0 2 2 7
- CV
- O RL- 1 8
- K RS R A M O N A . M E R C A D O , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s C IT Y O F O R L A N D O , a m un i ci pal c o rp o r a tio n a n d p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n o f th e S ta te o f F lo r id a ; R A M F I S P A D I L L A , O f f ic e r , in d iv id u a lly a nd a s a n a ge nta nd e m pl oy e e of the C i ty of

O r l a ndo a nd Or l a n d o Po l i c e De p a r tme n t , a n d CHRI ST I NA ROUSE, O f f i c e r , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s a n a ge nta nd e m pl oy e e of the C ity o f O r la n d o a n d O r la n d o P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t. D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 29, 2005)Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judg e for the Six th Circuit, sitting * by designation. Merc ado does not a

ppeal the district c ourt’s grant of summar y judgment to the 1 de fend ants on

his F if th, Sixth, and

Ei ghth Am e ndment c laims . H is a pp e llatebrie f o nly c halleng e s th edis tric t c ourt rulin g s o n th eF ourt

h Amendment a

nd ne g lig e nc eiss ue s. His alternative argument, that his Fourteenth Amendment rights wereviolated, is without merit bec ause there is no question that Mercado w as in custody at the time of the se izure. A suspect is in custody

whenever a

n officer “restrains the f

ree dom of a person to walk aw ay, he has seized that person.” Tenne ssee v. Ga rner , 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S. C t. 1694, 85 L . Ed. 2d 1 (1985) (citingUnited States v. Brignoni- Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S. Ct. 2574, 45 L . Ed. 2d 607 (1975)) . Be causethe police surrounded Mercado a nd therewas no wa

y for him to esca

pe, he was “ seized” for

the purposes of

the Four th Amendment. Even if Mercado was not seized at the point when he wa s surrounded by police, he w as seized at the time he w as struck by the projec tile from the Sag e L auncher. See Car r v. Tata ng elo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1268 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 2 B efo re M A R C U S , F A Y an d S IL E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * S IL E R , C i rc ui tJudg e: P la in tif f R a m o n A . M e r c a d o ap p e a ls th e g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n ts C ity o f

O r la n d o ( “O r la n d o ” ) , a n d p o lic e o f f ic e r s R a m f

is P a di l l a a nd C hr i s t i na R ous e on hi s 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m s f orthe us e of
exce ss i ve force w hen d et ai ni ng hi m and p re v en t i ng hi m fr om com m i tt i ng sui ci de. 1 F or the fol l ow i ng re as on s, w e REVER SE a nd RE MAND on the i ss ue of qu al i fi ed i m m uni ty w i th r e s pe c tt o P a di l l a a nd AF F I RM o n a ll o th e ris s u e s . I. In 20 02 , M er ca do and h i s w i fe , Ibi s, had a heat ed ar gu m ent , du rin g w hi ch Ibi s t ol d M er ca do tha t s h e w ant ed t o end thei r m arri age a nd re turn t o P uert o R i co
w i tho uthi m . M er ca do beca m e des po nd ent , began t o cry , and t ri ed t o con vi nce her3

to s ta y, t el l i n g h er th ath e w o u l d co m m i tsu i ci d e i f sh e l efth i m . T o d em o n stra te hi s i nt e nt , he w r app ed a t el ep hone c or d a r ound hi s ne c k a nd a tt a c he d the othe re nd t o a cei l i n g v en t . M e r c a d o u sed a k i t ch en k n i fe t o m ak e m u l t i p l e cu t s o n h i s arm s. H e th e n g r a s p e d th e k n if e w ith b o th h a n d s a n d p o in te d it to w a r d h is h e a r t. Ibi s c al l ed the O rl ando P ol i ce D epar tm entand report ed the att em pt ed sui ci de, and o ff

i ce rs w er e di spat ched t o h er ap ar tm en t . R ou se and P adi l l a w er e am on g t ho se offi ce rs w ho arri ved atM er ca d o’ s r es i dence. Ibi s t ol d the offi ce rs tha tM e r c a do w a s a r m e d w i th a kni f e a nd ha d thr e a t e ne d t o c om m i tsui c i de
. T he pol i c e a tt e m pt e d t o m a ke ve rba l c o n t act w i th M e r c a do f ortw e nty m i nut e s f

r om ou t si de the apartm entdo or . W hen t hi s a tt em ptw as un succ es sf ul , the offi ce rs e nt e r e d the apa r tm e ntw i th I bi s ’ s pe r m i s s i on. I n s i d e , th e o f

f ic e r s f o u n d M e r c a d o s ittin g o n th e k itc h e n f lo o r , c r y in g . H e
w a s hol di ng t h e k n i fe i n both ha nds a nd poi nt i ng i tt ow a r d hi s he a r t . T he te le p h o n e c o r d w a s s till w r ap p e d a r o u n d h i s n e c k , b u t th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t it
w a s s t i l l w r appe d a r ound the c e i l i ng ve nt . T he of f i c e r s i den t i fi ed the m s e l ve s a nd
o r d e r e d M e r c a d o to d r o p h is k n if e a t le a s t tw o tim e s ( o n c e in E n g l i s h a n d o n c e in S pa ni s h) , buthe r e f

us e d w i thoutm a ki ng a ny thr e a t e ni n g m o v es t ow a r d the of f i c e r s . A tno t i m e di d the of f i c e r s w a r n M e r c a do tha tf or c e w oul d be us e d i f

he di d notdr op hi s w e apon.Although theofficers claim that Mercado w as “turningblue” f rom oxyg en deprivation at 2 the time that Padilla hit himwith the Sag e L auncher, another off icer stated that he did not turn blu euntila ft e r h ewa s sh ot. B e c a us ethi s is a

motion fo r s umm ary

judgment, wemus t vi e w all evidenc e in the light most favorableto the non-movingparty and assume that Mercado was not su ff oc atin gwh e n th epo lic ee ntere d h is a pa rtment. Acc ordingto Mercado’s deposition and medical evidence , he wa s only hit by one rubber 3 baton, so the other shot must have missed Mercado entirely
. 4 F ifteen to th irty se co n d s a fterg iv in g th at o rd er , P ad il la fo ll o w ed R o u se ’s
or de r s t o hi tM e r c a do w i th the S a ge S L 6 L a unc he r( “ S a ge L a unc he r ” ) a nd s ubdue h i m. Th e Sa g e La u n c h e ri s a “ l e s s l e th a l ” mu n i t i o n th a tf i r e s a p o l y u r e th a n e b a t on 2 th ati s 1
. 5 i n ch es w i d e, trav el s ap p ro x i m at el y 2 4 0 feetp er seco n d , a n d d el i v ers a fo rce o f 1 5 4 fo o t/p o u n d s o f en erg y– ap p ro x i m at el y th e en erg y o f a p ro fessi o n al l yt hr ow n b a s e b a l l
. Th e Sa g e La u n c h e rw a s d e s i g n e d t o b e u s e d t o p r o t e c tp e r s ons f ro m se l f
- i nf l i c t e d i nj ur y , e s pe c i a l l y w he n us i ng a ni ghts t i c k orba t on w oul d be
uns a f e ori m pr a c t i c a l
. T he p r oj e c t i l e i s notde s i gne d t o pe ne tr a t e the body , but
o n ly to le a v e b ru is e s . F rom a di st ance of ap prox i m at el y s i x fee t , P adi l l a had a cl ea r vi ew and fi re d the S ag e L au n che rtw i c e , hi tt i ng M e r c a do onc e i n the he a d. P a di l l a c l a i m s tha the 3
w a s a im in g a t M e r c a d o ’s s h o u ld e r . T h e im p a c t f r a c tu r e d M e r c a d o ’s s k u ll,
r e s ul t i ng i n br a i n i nj ur i e s . H e now t a ke s m e di c a t i on t o pr e ve nts e i z ures, an d he
s uf f e rs f r om a hos tof

a i l m e nt s i nc l udi ng he a da c he s , l os s of m e m or y , l os s of ba l a nc e , i ns om ni a , di z z i ne s s , s tutt e r i ng , l os s of s e ns a t i on a nd m ove m e nt , l os s of5

s tr e n g th , a n d s e n s itiv ity to lig h t. H e is d is a b le d a n d c a n n o t w o r k
. P adi l la w as tra i ned o n t he ac ce pt abl e use s of the S age L auncher. H e w as al so a w a r e of

O r l a ndo P ol i c e D e pa r tm e ntpol i c i e s c onc e r ni ng the w e apon, s p e c i f i c a l l y , t ha t “ [ t ] a r g e t i n g th e h e a d o rn e c k wi th th e b a t o n o rSa g e SL 6 p r o je c tile is a c c e p tab le in d e a d ly f o r c e s itu a tio n s o n ly .” F u rt herm ore, the po l i cy d e f in e s “d e a d ly f

o r c e ” a s “f

o r c e th a t is lik e ly to c a u s e d e a th o rg r e a t b o d ily h a r m .” T he pol i c i e s al so pr ovi de tha ta c r i s i s ne got i a t i on t e a m s ha l l be di s pa t c he d w he n a s u b j e c t th r e a te n s to c o m m it s u ic id e , h a s th e ap p a r e n t a b ility to d o s o , a n d r e f u s e s to
s u r r e n d e r . S hor t l y a f

t e rthe i nc i de nt , a nothe rof f i c e r t est ed P a di l l a ’ s S a ge L a unc he rf or a c c ur a c y . T he w e apon w a s i n pr ope rw or ki ng or de ra nd w a s a c c ur a t e u p t o a di s t a nc e o f fi ve y a r ds
. I n he rde pos i t i on, R ous e t e s t i f i e d tha tthe i nc i de ntdi d not
re qu i re deadl y forc e; ho w ever , P adi l l a st at ed that the si tuat i on m i gh t hav e r eq u i re d
s uc h fo rce. T he de f

e nda nt s ’ e xpe r tt e s t i f

i e d tha tde a dl y f

or c e w oul d notbe
appr opr i a t e unde rthe s e f a c t s a nd tha th e w oul d notha ve purpos e l y a i m e d the S a ge L a unc he ra tM e r c a do’ s he a d. M er ca do sued P adi l l a a nd R ou se i n b oth thei r i nd i v idual and o ff i ci al
c apa c i t i e s , a l l e gi ng tha tthe y us ed u n reasonabl e f or c e i n de t a i ni ng hi m , a nd thus
v i o l at ed h i s ri g h t s u n d er th e F o u rth , F i fth , S i x th , E i g h th , an d F o u r te e n th6

A m e n d m e n ts . H e a s s e r te d a M o n e ll c la im a g a in s t O r la n d o , c la im in g th a t th e c ity has apo l i cy o f u si ng exce ss i ve force agai nsti t s c i t i ze ns. H e a l so as se rt ed st at e- l aw c l a i m s a g a i n s tO r l a n d o f o rn e g l i g e n c e i n tr a i n i n g a n d s u p e r v i s i n g Pa d i l l a a nd R ou se . L a t e r , the de f

e ndant s f

i l e d a m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o pr e ve nt , i nt e ra l i a , the i ntr oduc t i on of

a s t a t e m e ntby M ercad o’ s s i s t e r , L i m a r i e V a r ga s , c onc e r ni ng a c onve r s a t i on w i th O f

f i c e rA ngel B u rg o s on the ni ghtof the i nc i de nt . B ur gos a lle g e d ly to ld V a r g a s th a t O r la n d o tr a in s its o f f ic e r s to “s h o o t p e o p le in th e h e a d ,”
n o t th e b o d y . T h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t th e s ta te m e n t w a s in a d m is s ib le h earsay. T he di stri ctco u rt g ra nt ed sum m ary j ud gm entt o t he defendant s, st at i ng that the offi ce rs di d n otuse e xces si ve force a g ai nstM er ca do and w er e a ff orded q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . I t a l s o d is m is s e d th e M o n e ll an d n eg l i g en ce cl ai m s ag ai n st O r la n d o f

o rla c k o f

e v id e n tia r y s u p p o r t. II. W e r e vi e w t h e di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo. L e e v. F e r r a r o , 2 8 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 )
. S u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is a p p r o p r i a te
w he n the “ pl e a di ngs , d ep o si t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e r r oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f ile , to g e th e r w i th th e a f f id a v its , if

a n y , s h o w th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s toMerc ado also sued both of ficers in their off

icial ca pacities. How ever , Merc ado’s 4 op e ningbrie f to this c ourt on ly a dd re sse s th eiss ueof

theof fi c e rs ’ q ualif ie d immunity

fo r ac ts do nein t he ir indivi du a l c a

pac ity . B e c a

us eMerc a do did

no t arguethat th edis tric t c ourt e rre d in grantingsummary

judgment to the officers in their off icial ca pacities, this argument should be deeme d waived. SeeFour Seasons Hotel and Re sorts, B.V. v. Consorc io Ba rr S.A., 377 F .3d 1164, 1167 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004). 7 a ny m a t e r i a l f

a c t a n d th a t th e mo v i n g p a rty i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n t a s a ma tt e rof la w .” F e d . R . C i v . P ro . R . 5 6 (c). W h en m ak i n g th i s d et erm i n at i o n , w e v i ew a ll f a c t s i n the l i ghtm o st fav o ra bl e t o M e r c a do, the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . S e e S kr t i c h v. T hor nt on, 280 F . 3 d 1295, 1299 ( 11th C i r . 2002)
. F ur the r m or e , w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof

a m ot i on i n l i m i ne f

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. C hr y s l e rI nt e r n. C o rp . v . C h e m a ly , 2 8 0 F .3 d 1 3 5 8 , 1 3 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 )
. A . M er cad o’s C l ai m A ga i n st th e O ff i ce rs for E xces si ve F orce 4 M e r c a do can onl y s t a t e a c l a i m unde rF our th A m e ndm e nta ga i ns tR ous e a nd P a d illa if t h e o f

f i c e r s a r e n o t e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . “Q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity off e r s c ompl e t e pr ot e c t i on f orgo ve rnme ntof

f i c i a l s s ue d i n the i ri nd i vi dual
c apa c i t i e s a s l ong a s the i rc onduc tvi ol a t e s no c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d s t at u t o ry or c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s of w hi c h a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve know n. ” F er r a r o, 28 4 F .3 d at 1 19 3-94 (quo t i ng T ho m as v. R ob ert s, 26 1 F
. 3d 11 60 , 11 70 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi tt e d )
. Q u a l i f i e d i mmu n i ty a l l o w s g o v e r nm e nt
e m pl oy e e s t o c a r r y outthe i rdi s c r e t i ona r y dut i e s w i thout fear of l i t i ga t i on, “p r o te c tin g f

r o m s u i t a l l b u t th e p la in ly in c o m p e te n t o ro n e w h o is k n o w in g ly8

vi ol at i ng the fe dera l l aw . ” I d
. a t1194 ( c i t at i o n and i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks
o m itte d )
. In order for the d ef

en dant s t o cl ai m prot ec t i on for qual i fi ed i m m un i ty, they
m us tf i r s tde m ons tr a t e tha tthe y w e r e enga ge d i n a di s c r e t i ona r y duty . H ol l om a n v. H ar l and, 37 0 F
. 3d 12 52 , 12 64 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). B ec ause the defendant s w er e tr y i ng t o appr e he nd a pot en t i a l l y s ui c i da l s ubj e c t , the y w e r e c l e a r l y e nga ge d i n a di sc re t i on ary ca p ac ity. T he bu rden, then, shi ft s t o M er ca do t o sho w thatqu al i fi ed i m m uni ty i s notappr opr i a t e by s a t i s f y i ng a tw o -p a r ti nqui r y . C our s on v. M c M illia m , 9 3 9 F . 2 d 1 4 7 9 , 1 4 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . F ir s t, v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a b l e t o h i m , he m us ts how tha tthe of f i c e r s vi ol a t e d a
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . Sau c i e rv . Ka t z , 5 3 3 U. S. 1 9 4 , 20 0, 12 1 S
. Ct
. 2 1 5 1 , 1 5 0 L. E d. 2d 272 ( 2001)
. I f

s uc h vi ol a t i on oc c ur r e d, the n w e m u s tde t e r m i ne i f tha tr i ght
w as cl ea rl y e st abl i shed atthe t i m e of the i nci dent
. Id
. 1. W h et h er th e O ff

i ce rs V i ol ated M er cad o’s C on st i tu ti on al R i gh ts T he F ou rth A m endm ent ’ s f re edom fr om un re aso n abl e s ea rc hes a nd se i zure s i n cl u d e s the r i ghtt o be f r e e f r om e xc e s s i ve f

or c e dur i ng a c r i m i na l appr e he ns i on. G r a ha m v. C onnor , 490 U
. S
. 386, 394- 95, 109 S
. C t . 1 8 6 5 , 1 0 4 L . E d. 2d 443 (1 9 8 9 ). In d et e r m in in g w h eth er th e o ffi cers’ fo rce w as reaso n ab l e, w e m u st d e te r m in e “w h e th e ra r e a s o n a b le o f f ic e rw o u ld b e lie v e th a t t h i s l e v e l o f f o r c e is9

nece ss ary i n t he si tuat i on athand
. ” F erra ro, 28 4 F
. 3d at11 97 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). U nd erG raham , court s s ho ul d d et erm i ne the “ obj ec t i ve re as on abl enes s” of a
s e i z ur e by ba l a nc i ng the “ na tur e an d qua l i ty of the i ntrus i on” a ga i ns tthe

“ go vernm ent al i nt er es tatst ake. ” 490 U . S
. at39 6. In thi s ca se , th e in trusi on w as se vere . M er ca do w as hi ti n t he head by a proj ecti le fire d fr om the S age L auncher,
c a u s in g s e r io u s b r a in in ju r y . A lth o u g h th is w e ap o n is c la s s if ie d a s a “le s s le th a l”
m u n i t i o n , O rl an d o p o l i ce reg u l at i o n s reco g n i ze th at i t can b e u sed as a d e a d ly
w e apon. W hen det erm i ni ng the go vernm ent ’ s i nt er es t , w e m ust consi der fa ct o rs that in c lu d e “th e s e v e r ity o f th e c r i m e a t is s u e , w h e th e rth e s u s p e c t p o s e s a n im m e d ia te thr eat t o the s a f

e ty of the of f i c e r s orothe r s , a nd w he the rhe i s a c t i ve l y r e s i s t i ng arrest o r a tt em p t i n g t o ev ad e arrest by fli g h t . ” Id
. F u rth erm o re, th e reaso n ab l en ess o f a “p a r tic u la ru s e o f

f o r c e m u s t b e ju d g e d f

r o m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

a r e a s o n a b le offi ce r on t he sc ene, ra ther than w i th the 20 / 20 vi si on of hi nd si gh t . ” I d
. B e c a u s e th is s itu a tio n d o e s n o t in v o lv e a c r im in a l a r r e s t, o u rf a c ts d o n o t f

it
ne a t l y w i thi n the G r a ha m f r a m e w or k. F u rt h e r m or e , be c a us e F l or i da doe s not
r e c ogni z e a tt e m pt e d s u i ci de a s a c r i m e , K r i s c he rv. M c I ve r , 697 S o. 2d 97, 100 (F l a. 19 97 ), i ti s i m po ss i bl e f or thi s c ou rtt o m ea sure the “ se veri ty of the cr i m e a t i ss ue. ”10

W e m ustnextconsid er th e e xt entt o w hi ch M er ca do pl ac ed hi m se l f or others i n da nge r . S e e K e s i nge rv. H e r r i ngt on, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 1243, 1249- 50 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( g r a n t i n g q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity to o f

f ic e rw h o u s e d d e a d ly f

o r c e o n a s u ic id a l v ic tim
w ho “ pos e d a n i m m e di a t e th reat of ha r m ” t o hi m s e l f

, the of f i c e r , a nd othe r s )
. T he d e f e n d a n ts c la im th a t th e u s e o f f o r c e i s ju s tif

ie d b e c a u s e s u ic id a l s u b je c ts
s om e t i m e s m a ke e r r a t i c m ove s tha tc a n j e opa r di z e the s a f e ty of the of fi ce r s on the
sc en e. S ee B el l v. Irw i n, 32 1 F
. 3d 63 7, 63 9 (7t h C i r. 20 03 ) ( no t i ng thatpo l i ce
w e r e j us t i f

i e d i n us i ng “ l e s s l e tha l ” bean -b ag r ounds on the pl a i nt i f f w ho th r e a te n e d to b l o w u p h is h o m e b y ig n itin g p r o p a n e a n d k e r o s e n e ta n k s o u ts id e h is h o m e )
. H ow ever , vi ew i ng th e fact s i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o M er ca do , w e c an fi nd no i nd i ca t i on thathe m ade a ny threa t eni ng m ov es t ow ar d t he po l i ce . S ee D eorl e v. R ut herf

ord, 27 2 F
. 3d 12 72 , 12 84 -85 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( denyi ng offi ce rs q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty aft er d ep l o yi n g a p ro j ect i l e “ b ean b ag ” a n d ta k in g o u tth e eye of a s ubj e c tw ho w a s r e l a t i ve l y c oope r a t i ve a nd n o ta thr e a tt o the of f i c e r s or ot hers ). E ven tho ug h he po se d no threa t t o the po l i ce , he w as a th re at to hi m se l f, and F l or i dal a w r e c og ni z e s a “ c ompe l l i ng i nt e r e s ti n p r e ve nt i ng s ui c i de
. ” K r i s c he r, 6 9 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 3
. F ur the r m or e , M e r c a do w a s nota c t i ve l y r e s i s t i ng a r r e s t , a nd the r e i s no11

e v i d e n c e th a th e s tru g g l e d w i th th e p o l i c e . Se e Fe r n a n d e z v . Co o p e rCi ty , 2 0 7 F. S up p. 2d 13 71 , 13 77 (S
. D . F l a. 20 02 ) ( ho l di ng th at o ffi ce rs w er e a ff orded q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty f

or usi ng forc e t o sub du e a n em ot i on al l y unst ab le p erson w ho w as ac ti v ely r es isti n g ar re st) . A rg u ab ly, M er ca d o d id n o t h av e tim e to o b ey P ad il la’s
or de rt o dr op the kni f

e be c a us e P a di l l a di s c ha r g ed t h e S a ge L a uc he rw i thi n s e c onds
o f m a k in g th is r e q u e s t. A l l o f th e fact o rs art i cu l at ed i n G rah am w ei g h i n fav o r o f M erca d o . B e cau se h e w a s n o t c o m m ittin g a c r im e , r e s is tin g a rr e s t, o rp o s in g a n im m e d ia te th r e a t to th e o ff icer s a t th e tim e h e w as sh o t i n th e h ea d , i f P ad il la a im ed fo r M er ca d o ’s h ead , h e u sed ex cessi v e fo rce w h en ap p reh en d i n g M ercad o . A tth i s p o i n t , w e m u st
as su m e thatP adi l l a w as ai m i ng for M er ca do ’ s hea d b as ed on the evi dence that P a d illa w a s tr a in e d t o u s e t h e S a g e L a u n c h e r , th a t th e w e ap o n a c c u r a te ly h it ta r g e ts f r om di s t a nc e s up t o f

i ve y a r ds , a nd tha tM e r c a do s uf f e r e d i nj ur i e s t o hi s he a d. P adi l l a w as aw ar e thatth e S ag e L au n cherw as a l ethal forc e i f he s ho tata s ubj ec t fro m clo se ra ng e. T he offi ce rs w er e a l so aw ar e thatal t ernat i ve ac t i on s, such as ut i l i z i ng a c r i s i s ne g o t i at i o n t e a m , w e r e a va i l a bl e m e a ns of r e s ol vi ng the s i tua t i on. T hi s i s e sp eci al l y t rue i n l i ghtof the f a c ttha tM e r c a do ha d notm a de a ny th reat en i n g m o v es t o w ard h i m sel f o r th e o ffi cers. T h u s , in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e to M e r c a d o , P a d illa v io la te d h is F o u r th12

A m endm entri gh t s w hen h e i nt ent i on al l y a i m ed atand sho t M er ca d o in the head
w i th the S a ge L a unc he r . S e e T hor nt on v. C i t y o f M a c on, 132 F
. 3d 1395, 1400 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( denyi ng q u ali fi ed i m m un i ty f or po l i ce offi ce rs w hen t he suspec t d id n o t c o m m it a s e r io u s c r im e , p o s e a th r e a t to th e o f f ic e r s o ro th e r s , o ra c tiv e ly
r e s is t a r r e s t)
. W e f u rth erco n clu d e, h o w ev e r , th a t O ff icerR o u se d id n o t v io late M er ca d o ’s F o u rth A m endm entri gh t s. A l tho ug h O ff i ce r R ou se di d n otfi re the S age L auncher, M e r c a do c o n t e n d s th a t s h e s h o u l d b e h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e u n d e r a th e o r y of
s u p e r v is o r y liab ility
. [ S ] upe r vi so ry l i a bi l i ty unde r§ 1983 oc c ur s e i the rw he n the supervi sor per sonal l y par t i ci pat es i n t he al l eged un const i tut i o n al cond uctor w h en th er e i s acausal conn ec t i on betw ee n t he ac t i on s of a s upe r vi si n g of

f i c i a l a nd the a l l e ge d c ons t i tut i ona l de pr i va t i on. T he ne c e s s a r y c a u sal c onne c t i on c a n be e s t a bl i s he d w he n a hi s t or y of w i de s pr e a d ab u se put s the r e s pons i bl e s upe r vi s oron not i c e of the ne e d t o c or r e c tthe a l l e ge d de pr i va t i o n , an d h e f a i l s t o do s o. A l t e r na t i ve l y the cau sa l c onne c t i on m a y be e s t a bl i s he d w he n a supervi sor’ s “ cust om or po l i cy . . . re sul t [s ] i n del i be ra te in d i ff er ence t o c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s ” orw he n f a c t s s uppor ta n i n f

e r e nc e tha tthe su p ervi sor di re ct ed the subo rdi nat es t o actun l aw ful l y or knew that the s ubor di na t e s w o u l d a c tunl a w f ul l y a nd f

a i l e d t o s t op the m f

r om d o i n g so . T h e st an d ard b y w h i ch a su p er v is o r is h el d l i ab l e i n [h i s] in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity f

o rth e a c tio n s o f

a s u b o r d i n a te is e x tr e m e ly r ig o r o u s . C ot t on e v . J en n e, 32 6 F
. 3d 13 52 , 13 60 -61 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t at i on s a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).13

O ff i ce r R ou se w as i n ano ther r oo m du ri ng the i nci dent , and d i d n otse e P adi l l a a i m or fi re the gu n. S he di d n ott el l P ad il la to fire the S age L auncher at M er ca d o ’s h ea d. G i ven t hatP adi l l a w as tra i ned i n the prop eruse of the l auncher, th at the D epar tm ent ’ s gui del i nes prohi bi t ed fi ri ng the l auncher ata s uspect ’ s hea d
orne c k e xc e pti n de a dl y f or c e s i tua t i ons , a nd tha t( a s e xpl a i ne d be l ow ) there i s no evi dence thatP adi l l a has used si m i l ar l y e xces si ve force i n t h e pas t–al l of w hi ch ar e un di sput ed fa ct s i n the re cord–R ou se co u ld no tre as on abl y have a nt i ci pat ed that P a di l l a w a s l i ke l y t o s h o o tM e r c a do i n the he a d e i the ri nt e nt i ona l l y or
u n i n t en t i o n al l y. E v en u n d er th e “ fai l u re t o st o p ” st an d ard fo r su p erv i so ry l i ab i l i ty, R o u s e c a n n o t b e h e ld liab le
. 2. W h e t h e r P ad i l l a V i ol at e d C l e ar l y E s t ab l i s h e d L aw . E v e n th o u g h P a d illa v io la te d M e r c a d o ’ s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , h e c o u ld s till b e a f f o r d e d q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity p r o v id e d th a t M e r c a d o ’s r ig h ts w e r e n o t c le a r ly
es t abl i shed atthe t i m e of the i nci dent
. M er ca do can dem on stra t e thathi s r i gh tw as c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d in a n u m b e r o f w a y s . F ir s t, h e c a n s h o w th a t a m a te r ia lly si m i l arca se has a l re ady bee n d ec i ded, gi vi ng no t i ce t o the po l i ce . H a r l ow v. F itz g e r a ld , 4 5 7 U .S . 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 2 7 2 7 , 7 3 L . E d . 2 d 3 9 6 ( 1 9 8 2 )
. H e c o u ld al so show thata broader, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed pri nci pl e s ho ul d con tro l th e n ov el f a c t s i n th i s s i tu a t i o n . Ho p e v . Pe l z e r , 5 3 6 U. S. 7 3 0 , 7 4 1 , 1 2 2 S. Ct
. 2 5 0 8 , 1 5 3 L.The c ase of Wood v. C ity

of L akela

nd, 203 F.3d 1288 ( 11th Cir. 2000), contains the 5 c le are st f a c tual simil ari tie s to thec a seat ba r. In Wo od , th eplaintif

f’ s f amily c a lle d th epo lic eto subdue a suicidal subject. I d. at 1290. When the offic ers entere d the re sidence , they observe d him sitting on a

dresser, with his blood-covered ar ms holding an obje ct to his neck. I d. After repe atedly

ref using to drop his we apon, he slid off the dre sser, promptingan off icer to shoot 14 E d. 2d 666 ( 2002)
. F i na l l y, h e c oul d s how tha tthi s c a s e f i t s w i thi n the e xc e pt i on o f c o n d u c t w h ic h s o o b v io u s ly v io la te s t h a t c o n s titu tio n th a t p r io rc a s e la w is
u n n e c e s s a r y . F erraro , 2 8 4 F . 3 d at1 1 9 9
. T o m ak e th i s sh o w in g , M e r cad o m u st poi ntt o l a w a s i nt e rpr e t e d by the S upr e m e C our t , t h e E l e ve nth C i r c ui t , orthe S upr e m e C our tof

F l or i da
. S e e W i l l i ngha m v. L ough n an , 3 21 F
. 3d 1299, 1304 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. A n y case l aw th ati s “m a te r ial l y si m i l ar” t o th e fact s i n th e case at han d m u st pr e - da t e the of

f i c e r ’ s a l l e g ed i m p ro pe rc onduc ta nd “ trul y c om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tthe pl a i n t i ff h ad a r i ghtunde rf e de r a l l a w . ” E ns l e y v. S ope r , 142 F
. 3d 1402, 1406 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d)
. M e r c a do, h o w e v e r , c a n p o in t to n o c o n tr o llin g c a s e la w f r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is C i r c ui t de a l i ng w i th the S a ge L a unc he r . A l though the r e a r e s om e c a s e s de a l i ng
w ith “le s s le th a l” w e a p o n s , s u c h a s p e p p e rs p r a y , n o n e o f th e m is “m a te r ia lly
s i m i l a r ” t o the f

a c t s i n thi s c a s e or“ trul y c om pe l s ” the c onc l us i on tha tM e r c a do h a d a r ig h t e s ta b lis h e d u n d e rf e d e r a l la w . S e e , e .g ., V i ny a r d v. W i l s on, 311 F
. 3d 1340, 1349 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( de ny i ng qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty t o a n of f i c e rw ho spra ye d p epper i n t he ey es of an arre st ee w ho w as al re ady handcuffed). 5him . Theof fi c e rs weree nti tle d toqu a lif ie d immunity

be c a us ethey “ ma dea re a so na blesp lit
se c on d judgment c a ll, in l ight o f [h is] v olatil e , emotion a l, a nd a g gre ssivestate , tous ede a dly forc e in order to prevent immi nent death or great bodily harm to himself or a

nother.”I d. at 1293. Wood has since been called into question by Holloman beca

use the Wood court wa s too restric tive in its analysis. Bec ause there is no wa y to discern how theWood court would have de c ide d th at c a seun der t

hec or re c t le g a l analysis , it s re le va nc eis m arg inal. 15 I f the r e i s no c a s e l a w di r e c t l y on po i nt , “ [ g] e ne r a l s t a t e me nt s of the l aw c o n ta in e d w ith in th e C o n s titu tio n , s ta tu te , o rc a s e la w m a y s o m e t i m e s p r o v id e ‘f a ir
w arni ng ’ of un l aw ful cond uct . ” W i l l i ng ham , 32 1 F
. 3d at13 01
. T hese p rin cip l es
m a y gi ve not i c e t o of f i c e r s , pr ovi de d tha t the de c i s i ons c l e a r l y appl y t o the si tu at i o n ath an d
. T h e “r e a s o n i n g , th o u g h n o tth e h o l d i n g ” o f p ri o r cases can al so se nd “ the sa m e m es sa ge t o rea sonabl e off i ce rs ” i n n ov el fa ctual si tuati on s. H op e, 5 3 6 U .S . a t 7 4 3
. T he general pri nci pl e of l aw m ustbe spec i fi c e no ug h t o g i ve the offi ce rs not i c e of the c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d r i ght
. I nde e d, the pr i nc i pl e t h atof f i c e r s m a y not
use e xces si ve force t o app re hend a s uspecti s t oo broad a conceptt o g i ve of fi ce rs not i c e of una c c e pt a bl e c onduc t . S e e J one s v. C i ty of D otha n, 12 1 F . 3 d 1 456, 1460 ( 11th C i r. 1 9 9 7) ( not i ng tha ta l though the unc ons t i tut i ona l i ty of us i ng e xc e s s i ve f o r c e is a n e s ta b lis h e d p r in c ip le , th e c o n c e p t is f a rto o b r o a d )
. M e r c a do, how e ve r , rel i es o n the pr i nc i pl e tha tde a dl y f or c e c a nnotbe
e m pl oy e d i n a s i tua t i on tha tr e qui r e s l e s s - tha n -l etha l f or c e . S e e T e nne s s e e v. G arner, 47 1 U
. S
. at11 -12 ( h o ld in g th ata pol i ce offi ce r c anno t“ se i ze an un arm ed16

nonda nge r ous su sp ec tby s hoot i ng hi m de a d” )
. B e c a us e the F our th A m e ndm e nt pr ot e c t s c i t i z e ns f

r om “ unr e a s ona bl e ” sei z ur e s , the us e of de a dl y f

or c e m us tbe
r e a s o n a b le u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . V a u g h a n v . C o x , 3 4 3 F .3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U s in g d e a d ly f o r c e in a s itu a tio n th a t c l e a r l y w o u ld n o t ju s tif y its u s e is
u n r e a s o n a b le u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. U n d er F l o ri d a l aw , “ d ead l y f o r c e ” m e an s an y “ fo rce th ati s l i k el y t o cau se d eath o r g reatb o d i l y h arm , ” b u td o es n o ti n cl u d e “ th e d is c h a r g e o f a fi rearm b y a la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e ro rc o r r e c t i o n a l o f

f ic e rd u r in g a n d w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is
o rh e ro f f ic ia l d u tie s w h ic h is lo a d e d w ith a ‘le s s le th a l m u n i t i o n . ’ ” F la . S ta t. § 77 6. 06
. “ L es s- l ethal m un i t i on ” i s, i n turn, defi ned as “ a proj ec t i l e th at is desi gn ed t o s tun, t e m por a r i l y i nc apa c i t a t e , orc a us e t e m por a r y di s c om f or tt o a pe r s on
w i thoutpe ne tr a t i ng the pe r s on’ s body
. ” I d. A c c or di ng t o O rl ando pol i c i e s , the S age L auncher i s def

i ned as a“ l es s l ethal ” m un i t i on ; ho w ever , th ey al so re cogn i ze th atso m e u ses o f th e w eap o n sh o u l d o n ly b e em p l o yed i n d ead l y fo rce si tu at i o n s. S hoot i ng a s us pe c t i n t h e he a d i s s pe c i f i c a l l y f orbi dde n unl e s s the s i tua t i on
r e q u ir e s d e a d ly f

o r c e . A s n o t e d a b ove , f

o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

s u mma r y j u d g me n t , w e mu s ta s s u me tha tP ad i l l a i nt e nde d t o s hootM e r c a do i n the he a d ba s e d on M e r c a do’ s i nj ur i e s a nd the prov en ac cura cy o f P adi l l a’ s w eapo n. B ec ause shoo t i ng a s ubj ec ti n t he head17

w ith a S ag e L au n ch er em p l o ys fo rce “ l i k el y t o cau se d eath o r g reat b o d i ly h a r m ,” thi s a ct i on ca n b e co n sid er ed “ deadl y f orce . ” B oth P adi l l a a nd R ou se w er e a w ar e tha tpol i c e pol i c y f

orba de the m f

r om ut i l i z i ng t h i s m a gni tude of f or c e unde rthe fact s at b ar. B e c a us e thi s s i tua t i on w a s c l e a r l y nota de a dl y f or c e s i tua t i on, a nd be c a us e the of

f i c e r s ut i l i z e d de a dl y f

or c e t o s ubdue M ercad o , the y vi ol a t e d the
c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d p r in c ip l e t h a t d e a d ly f o r c e c a n n o t b e u s e d in n o n - d e a d ly si tu at i o n s. F ur the r m o re, t h i s i s one of the c a s e s tha tl i e “ s o obvi ous l y a tthe ve r y c or e of
w ha t the Fourth A me nd me nt pr oh i bi t s tha t the un l a w f ul ne s s of the c on du c tw as
r e a di l y appa r e ntt o the of f i c i a l , notw i ths t a ndi ng the l a c k of c a s e l a w . ” F err a r o, 284 F . 3d at 11 99 (i nter n al q uo t at i on and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he fa ct s i n thi s c as e a re al so “ so fa r bey on d the hazy bo rderbetw ee n exces si ve and acce pt abl e f orce that [the offi ci al ] had t o k no w he w as v i ol at i ng the C on st i tut i on even w i tho utca se l aw o n p o in t.” W illin g h a m , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 3
. W e h a v e r e p e a t e d ly h e ld th a t p o lic e o f f ic e r s c a n n o t u s e f

o r c e th a t is “w h o lly
un nece ss ary t o any l egi t i m at e l aw enforce m entpu rpose. ” F er ra ro , 28 4 F
. 3d at 1 1 9 9 ( h o ld i n g th a t s la m m in g a h a n d c u f f e d a r r e s te e ’s h e a d a g a in s t a v e h ic le vi ol a t e d the F our th A m e ndm e nt ) ; s e e S l i c ke rv. J a c ks o n , 2 1 5 F . 3d 1225, 1227 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( denyi ng qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty f or an offi ce r w ho ki cked an arr es t ee18

a l r e a dy i n ha ndc uf

f s ) ; P ri est er v . C i ty of

R i vi e r a B e a c h, 208 F
. 3d 919, 926- 27 (11th C i r . 2000) ( de ny i ng qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty t o of

f i c e r s w ho a l l ow e d a pol i c e dog to a tta c k a n a r r e s te e w h o w a s a lr e a d y o n th e g r o u n d )
. O f f i c e rP a di l l a s houl d notha ve ne e de d c a s e l aw t o know tha tby in te n tio n a lly s h o o tin g M e r c a d o in t h e h e a d , h e w a s v io la tin g M e r c a d o ’s F o u r th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . W he n the of f i c e r s en t ered the apa r tm e nt , the y f ound M e r c a do
cryi ng on the f

l oo r of hi s ki t chen w i th a l oo se cord around hi s nec k and a ki t chen kn i fe pl ac ed up t o, bu tno tpo ki ng i nt o, hi s c hest
. F ro m a d ist ance of abou tsi x fee t
a w a y , P a di l l a tw i c e s hout e d f orM e r c a do t o dr op hi s kn i fe, an d the n di s c ha r ge d the S age L aun ch er , hi tt i ng M er ca do i n the head from shortra ng e. A ss um i ng that P a d illa w a s a im in g a t M e r c a d o ’s h e a d in te n tio n a lly , h is u s e o f f o r c e w a s c le a r ly
exce ss i ve. T h e r e i s s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d to s u p p o r t a f in d in g th a t P a d illa i n t en t i o n al l y ai m ed fo r M ercad o ’ s h ead
. F i rstP ad i l l a h ad b een trai n ed i n th e u se of the S a ge L a unc he r . S e c ond, t h e de f e nda nt s ’ w i tne s s t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe S a ge L au n ch er fi re d acc urat el y f rom a di st ance of up t o fi ve ya rds. T hi rd, P adi l l a f i re d f r om a d i s t a n c e o f

s i x f e e t . Fi n a l l y , th e o n l y s h o tth a tma d e c o n t a c tw i th M e r c a do h it h im in th e h e a d
. S in c e s u c h c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e c o u ld le a d a r e a s o n a b le j ury t o fi nd th at P adi l l a i nt ended t o h i tM er ca do i n the head, w e R EVER SE the19

di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng a s t o P a di l l a a nd f i nd tha the s h o u l d n o t be a f f or de d the p r o te c tio n o f

q u a lif ie d im m u n ity
. B. M e r c a do ’ s Fo ur t h A m e ndm e nt C l a i m A g a i ns t O r l a ndo U n d er M o n el l v . D ep artm en t o f S o ci al S erv i ces, 4 3 6 U . S
. 6 5 8 , 9 8 S . C t. 20 18 , 56 L . E d. 2d 61 1 (19 78 ), m un i ci pal i t i es ar e s ubj ec tt o § 19 83 l i abi l i ty “ w hen
e xe c ut i on of

a gove r nm e nt ’ s pol i c y or cu st o m , w he the rm a de by i t s l a w m a ke r s or b y th o s e w h o s e e d i c ts o ra c ts m a y b e f a ir ly s a id to r e p r e s e n t o f f ic ia l p o lic y , in f

lic ts the i nj ur y [
. ] ” I d. a t694. F urt h erm o re , m uni c i pa l i t i e s c a nnotbe he l d l i a bl e f or e m pl oy e e s unde rr e s ponde a ts upe r i or . S a m pl e s v. C i ty of A t l a nt a , 846 F
. 2d 1328, 1 3 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 )
. F orM e r c a do’ s M one l l c l a i m t o s ur vi ve s um m ary j udgm e nt , he m us tbr i ng f or th s om e e vi de nc e of

a pa tt e r n of

i m p ro p e rtr a i ni ng t o s us t a i n hi s c l a i m , a nd he
m us ts how tha tO r l a ndo w a s a w a r e o f t h e d e f i c i e nc i e s i n the pr ogr a m . S e e C i ty of Ca n t o n v . H a rr i s , 4 8 9 U . S. 3 7 8 , 3 8 7 , 1 0 9 S. Ct
. 1 1 9 7 , 1 0 3 L. Ed
. 2 d 4 1 2 ( 1 9 89) ( not i ng tha tc ons t i tut i ona l pol i c i e s c a n be c om e unc ons t i tut i ona l l y ap p l i e d thr ough a
re peat ed fa i l ure t o tra i n); se e a l so R i l ey v. N ew t on , 94 F . 3d 63 2, 63 8 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) . F u r th e r m o r e , M e r c a d o m u s t s h o w th a t th is tr a in in g o rf a ilu r e to tr a in
a m ount e d t o “ de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e ” on the pa r t of the O rl a ndo
. S e e C i ty of C a nt on, 489 U
. S
. a t389; s e e a l s o G ol d v. C i ty of M i a m i , 151 F
. 3d 1346, 135020

(11t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (n ot i ng thatthere ar e onl y “ l i m i t ed ci rc um st ance s i n w hi ch an al l egat i on of a f

ai l ure t o tra in o r su p ervi se ca n b e the basi s f or l i abi l i ty und er§ 1 9 8 3 ” ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d )
. B oth of M e r c a do’ s a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng hi s M one l l c l a i m c ha l l e nge t he di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng s o n th e defe nd ant s’ m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ud e e vi dence fr om tri al
. M er ca do fi rs tcl ai m s thatthe courterre d i n d et erm i ni ng th at O ff i ce r B urgo s’ s s t at em ent , w hi ch w ou l d h ave been i ntrodu ce d throu gh M er ca do ’ s sis t er , tha tof f i c e r s a r e tr a i ne d t o “ s hootpe op l e i n t h e he a d, ” i s i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y a nd
m o r e p r e ju d ic ia l th a n p r o b a tiv e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, h o w e v e r , d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e te r m in e d th a t th e s ta te m e n t w a s h e a r s a y . R u l e 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(D ) st at es th ata n o n -h earsay p arty ad m issi o n i n cl u d es a

“ s t a t e m e ntby the pa r ty ’ s a ge ntors e rv a ntc onc e r ni ng a m a tt e rw i thi n the s c ope of th e a g e n c y o re m p lo y m e n t, m a d e d u r i n g t h e e x is te n c e o f th e r e la tio n s h ip .” A l tho ug h the st at em entm ay m ee tal l of these re qu i re m ent s, the R ul e f urther pr ovi de s tha t“ the c on t en t s o f t h e s t a t e m e nts ha l l be c ons i de r e d buta r e nota l one s uf f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h th e a g e n c y o re mp l o y me n tr e l a t i o n s h i p a n d s c o p e th e r e of
u n d e rs u b d i v i s i o n ( D ) .” T h e o n ly e v id e n c e M e r c a d o h a s p r o d u c e d r e la tin g to B urgo s’ s s t at em enti s the un corr ob orat ed st at em enti t se l f. B ec au se M er ca do has
n o t b r o u g h t f

o r th a n y e v id e n c e to c o r r o b o r a te th is s ta te m e n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idThis court must first determine if the claims that Mercado is alleg ing ag ainst Orlando 6 would be ac tionable ag ainst a privateperson. Thetorts of neg ligent supervision and neg ligent trainingarerec ognized in Florida, and no pa rty contends other

wise. 21 n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in f in d in g th a t th e s ta te m e n t is in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y . M e r c a do a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc o u rt err e d i n pr e c l udi ng hi m f r om i nt rodu ci ng i nt o evi dence other i nst ance s of O rl ando offi ce rs usi ng exce ss i ve force
. I n G ol d, w e de t e r m i ne d that a p l a i nt i f f c oul d note s t a bl i s h a M one l l c l a i m w he n he
c oul d notpoi ntt o a ny othe ri nc i de nt s i nvol vi ng si m i l a rf a c t s . 151 F
. 3d a t1351. M e r c a d o , t o o , c a n n o t m e e t th is b u r d e n . D u r in g d is c o v e r y , h e w a s g iv e n a lis t o f a ll
ca se s i nv ol vi ng exce ss i ve force, b u t h e cann otshow thatany of them i nv ol ved f a c tua l s i tua t i ons tha ta r e s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o the c a s e a tha n d
. F o r t hi s r e a s on, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t a b u se it s d iscr etio n , an d th e d ism issa l o f M er ca d o ’s M on el l cl ai m agai nstO rl ando shou l d b e A FFI R M ED . C . M e r c a do ’ s N e g l i g e nc e C l a i m s A g a i ns t O r l a ndo F i na l l y , M e r c a do a l l e ge d tha tO r l a ndo w a s ne gl i ge nti n tr a i ni ng a nd
s upe r vi s i ng i t s e m pl oy e e s , a nd O r l a ndo de f e nds o n the gr ounds of s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty . A l though F l or i da S t a tut e § 768. 28( 1) w a i ve s s overei gn i m m uni ty f or a c ts w h ic h w o u ld c r e a te liab ility f o ra p r iv a te p e r s o n , s u c h w a iv e re x te n d s o n ly to th e g o v ern m en t ’ s “ o p erat i o n al , ” n o t“ d i scret i o n ary” acts. L ew i s v . C i ty o f S t. P e t e r s bur g, 260 F
. 3d 1260, 1262 ( 11th C i r . 2001)
. E ve n though th e o ffi c e r s ha d a 622

du ty of c ar e w ith re spec tt o M er ca do because he w as i n cust od y, M oo re v. S t at e, 861 S o. 2d 1251, 125 3 (F l a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 2003) , he m us ts how tha tthe tr a i ni ng a n d s u p e r v is io n o f

th e d e f e n d a n t o f

f ic e r s c o n s titu te d a n o p e r a tio n a l d u t y b e f o r e it
can seek t o reco v er an y d am ag es. 1 . N e g l i g e nt Tr a i ni ng F or M er ca do t o st at e acl ai m for negl i gent traini ng , he m ustshow that O r l a n d o w a s n e g l i g e n ti n th e i mp l e me n t a t i o n or ope r a t i o n o f th e tr a i n i n g p r o g r a m. H e c a nnotm e r e l y c ha l l e nge t h e c ont e ntof the pr ogr a m . T he de t e r m i na t i on of the
c o n te n t o f

a tr a in i n g p r o g r a m is a d is c r e tio n a r y f u n c tio n f

o rth e c ity w h ic h is
a f f o r d e d s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity . L e w is , 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 6 . B e c a u s e M e r c a d o o n ly chal l enges the cont entof the prog ra m , no tthe w ay in w hi ch the prog ra m w as i mp l e me n t e d , O r l a n d o i s e n t i t l e d t o s o v e r e i g n i mmu n i ty w i th r e s p e c tt o th i s c l a i m. 2. N e gl i ge n t S u p e r vi s i on T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtre cogn i ze d the t ortof negl i gentre t ent i on as e a r l y a s 1 9 5 4 , s t a t i n g th a tth e e mp l o y e rc a n n o tk n o w i n g l y k e e p “ a d a n g e r o us se rvanton the prem i se s w hi ch defendantkn ew or sh o u ld have kn ow n w as dang er ou s a nd i ncom pet ent [. ] ” M al l ory v. O ’ N ei l , 69 S o. 2d 31 3, 31 5 (F l a. 19 54 ). T o st at e acl ai m of negl i gentre t ent i on of em pl oyee s, M er ca d o m ustshow that O r la n d o w a s p u t o n n o t i c e o f th e “h a r m f

u l p r o p e n s itie s o f

th e e m p lo y e e s .” W illis23

v. D ade C ou nt y S ch. B d. , 41 1 S o. 2d 24 5, 24 6 n
. 1 (F l a. D ist. C t. A p p . 198 2). B ec ause M er ca do has notbrou gh tforth a n y ev id en ce thatO rl ando had n ot i ce that ei ther of the offi ce rs had “ harm ful prop ensi ti es ” o r w as otherw i se un fi tt o serve as a p o l i ce o ffi cer, h e can n o tst at e a cl ai m fo r n eg l i g en tsu p erv i si o n . F o r th ese re as on s, w e AF F I RM th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ru lin g s a s to M e r c a d o ’s c la im s f o rb o th
ne gl i ge nttr a i ni ng a nd ne gl i ge nts upe r vi s i on. A FFI R M ED i n pa r ta nd R EVER SED a nd R EM A N D ED in p a r t.