Opinion ID: 2778699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: gomez’s claims against the united states

Text: A. Gomez’s False Arrest Claim against the United States On appeal, Gomez makes no argument that, even if Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity, the district court erred by dismissing his false arrest claim against the United States. 14 Accordingly, Gomez has abandoned any remaining argument regarding his false arrest claim against the United States. See T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d at 1306. Because we conclude that Officer Doe was entitled to qualified immunity, and because Gomez advances no argument as to why his false arrest claim against the United States was nonetheless wrongly dismissed, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Gomez’s false arrest claim against the United States. B. Gomez’s Battery Claim against the United States Gomez contends on appeal that the district court erred by dismissing his battery claim against the United States because Florida law governs the claim and, under Florida law, the reasonableness of an officer’s application of force is a question for the jury to decide. The FTCA demands that federal courts apply the law of the situs state to determine whether a tort claim has been stated. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Here, because the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Florida, we apply Florida 14 In fact, Gomez makes no argument in his briefs specifically regarding his false arrest claim against the United States. 22 Case: 14-10031 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 23 of 23 law to Gomez’s battery claim against the United States, brought pursuant to the FTCA. Under Florida law, “an officer is liable for damages only where the force used is clearly excessive.” City of Miami v. Sanders, 672 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1996). In this case, we have already concluded that the amount of force used was de minimis. Therefore, we likewise conclude that Gomez has failed to allege facts that, if true, establish that the amount of force used was “clearly excessive,” as required to establish a battery claim based on excessive force under Florida law. Accordingly, Gomez has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the district court did not err in dismissing Gomez’s battery claim against the United States.