Case Name: Thomas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel OLGILVIE, individually and as an explorer for the City of Clanton, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-18
Citations: 200 F. App'x 948
Docket Number: No. 05-16360
Parties: Thomas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel OLGILVIE, individually and as an explorer for the City of Clanton, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 948–950

Head Matter:
Thomas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel OLGILVIE, individually and as an explorer for the City of Clanton, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-16360.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 18, 2006.
James W. Porter, II, Porter, Porter & Hassinger, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jock Michael Smith, Brian P. Strength, Cochran, Cherry, Givens & Smith, Tuskegee, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge.
Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After careful consideration, and for the reasons noted herein and discussed at oral argument, we conclude that the judgment of the district court with respect to appellant Olgilvie is due to be affirmed. With respect to appellant's challenge to his status as a state actor, and based on the facts assumed by the district court, we conclude that Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S.Ct. 576, 95 L.Ed. 774 (1951), clearly establishes that appellant here was a state actor. With respect to the excessive force claim, we accept the facts assumed by the district court, namely, that appellant actively participated in the arrest of plaintiff, and personally participated in the beating after the plaintiff was already down, not resisting, and handcuffed; during the beating, plaintiffs head was slammed into the paved parking lot. Under the assumed facts, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs excessive force claim. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir.2002); Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.2000); and Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d 1395 (11th Cir.1998). Aso, on the facts assumed by the district court and accepted by us, it is clear that there was no arguable probable cause for the arrest. Finally, we agree with the district court's denial of Olgilvie's claim for immunity from the Alabama law claims under the Voluntary Service Act.
AFFIRMED.