Court Opinion

ID: 9840864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:01:45.272064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:54.710600
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10244      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023   Page: 1 of 16

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                   No. 23-10244
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

        WILLIAM ROBERT LEONARD,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        SHERIFF GREGORY TONY
        individually and in his oﬃcial capacity as
        Sheriﬀ of Broward County, et al.,

                                                               Defendants,

        CHRISTIAN SILVA,
        individually for actions taken in his oﬃcial
        capacity as Deputy Sheriﬀ for the Broward
        County Sheriﬀs Oﬃce,
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023    Page: 2 of 16

        2                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10244

        ROBERT O'DOR,
        individually for actions taken in his oﬃcial
        capacity as Deputy Sheriﬀ for the Broward
        County Sheriﬀs Oﬃce,
        MITCHELL MACHADO,
        individually for actions taken in his oﬃcial
        capacity as Deputy Sheriﬀ for the Broward
        County Sheriﬀs Oﬃce,
        BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-60627-CMA
                           ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               William Robert Leonard, as Personal Representative of the
        Estate of Jarvis Randall, appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
        mary judgment to Sergeant Christian Silva, Deputy Robert O’Dor,
        Deputy Mitchell Machado, and the Broward County Sheriﬀ’s Of-
        ﬁce (BSO) in Leonard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claims
        against Silva, O’Dor, and Machado, and state battery claims against
USCA11 Case: 23-10244        Document: 26-1        Date Filed: 09/20/2023        Page: 3 of 16

        23-10244                  Opinion of the Court                              3

        Silva, O’Dor, Machado, and the BSO. Leonard contends the district
        court erred in making several fact determinations in granting sum-
        mary judgment, and that these disputed issues of material fact
        make this case appropriate for a jury trial. After review, we aﬃrm
        the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
                            I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1
               This case arises out of the shooting death of Jarvis Randall
        at the Mental Health Pavilion at University Hospital in Tamarac,
        Florida. Randall was a patient at the facility who was admitted un-
        der the Baker Act 2 on November 20, 2018. Randall exhibited psy-
        chosis with suicidal ideation and aggressive behavior and was diag-
        nosed with bipolar depression. Randall made some progress dur-
        ing his ﬁrst week at the Pavilion, but he then learned his father
        passed away. Learning of his father’s death resulted in his depres-
        sion worsening and he exhibited suicidal thoughts and aggressive
        behaviors requiring signiﬁcant interventions and emergency treat-
        ment medications to calm him down. Randall wanted to leave the
        Pavilion to attend his father’s funeral. Although Randall’s provid-
        ers had contemplated a discharge plan for his release, no ﬁnal

        1 Because we review all evidence in favor of the non-moving party, we use

        both those portions of the “Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts in Sup-
        port of Motion for Summary Judgment” that the Plaintiff did not dispute in his
        response, as well as facts that are captured in the video evidence on which
        there can be no genuine dispute. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
        2 The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, §§ 394.451-394.4781, Fla. Stat., is

        commonly known as the “Baker Act” and allows the emergency involuntary
        institutionalization and examination of an individual.
USCA11 Case: 23-10244      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 4 of 16

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10244

        decision had been made as to his release because Randall “had lim-
        ited resources, no access to basic necessities or living arrangements,
        and no health care provider.”
               The video footage of the events at the Pavilion on December
        1, 2018, is extensive. Almost all of the following facts are observa-
        ble on the video from the oﬃcers’ body-worn cameras (BWC) or
        the video from cameras in the hospital. On December 1, Randall
        refused his medication around 9:30 p.m. Later, he appeared at the
        nurses’ station, requesting to leave and stating that he was going to
        stab someone. He was told he could not leave, and Randall refused
        medication to help him calm down and walked back to his room.
        He then returned to the nurses’ station with a pencil in one hand
        and a shampoo bottle in the other, yelling that he wanted to leave.
        He threw the shampoo bottle at the light, and jumped up and
        punched the light and the ﬁre extinguisher. Randall then breached
        security by kicking through locked doors, and ended up in an un-
        occupied outpatient area.
               Hospital staﬀ notiﬁed security and the Director of the facil-
        ity, who advised the staﬀ to call the police. BSO dispatch received
        two 911 calls reporting the incident. Deputies Belisario Amaris and
        Lisa Almanza-Londono were the ﬁrst BSO deputies to arrive on the
        scene, and they were informed Randall was armed with a pencil.
        The deputies observed Randall standing in a hallway bordered by
        two exits—one an emergency exit to the outside, and the other
        double doors leading to patient rooms and hospital staﬀ. The two
        BSO deputies were located outside the double doors, one of which
USCA11 Case: 23-10244      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 5 of 16

        23-10244               Opinion of the Court                        5

        was open and Randall and the deputies could see and talk to each
        other. When the deputies attempted to talk to Randall, he made
        several statements to them that he did not want to live anymore,
        that he was going to make the oﬃcers shoot and kill him, and that
        no one could save him. Randall stated he did not want to talk to
        or listen to the deputies, and repeatedly kicked the door that exited
        outside.
               Randall began walking toward the double doors and said he
        would make Deputy Almanza-Londono use her gun. Randall then
        walked back to the exit door when Deputy Amaris said they would
        give Randall space. Randall picked up a stand containing pam-
        phlets and dumped the pamphlets on the ﬂoor. Randall once again
        told the deputies to shoot him, and then used the pamphlet stand
        to knock out a light on the ceiling, causing plexiglass to shatter on
        the ﬂoor. He began shattering larger pieces of plexiglass on a table
        to fashion into smaller shards of plexiglass. Randall then told Dep-
        uty Almanza-Londono, “You know I’m ﬁxing to come at you,” and
        she responded, “Why are you doing that to us?” Randall stated he
        did not want to live anymore and that the hospital would not let
        him go, even though they were supposed to let him go yesterday.
        He repeated that he was going to make them shoot him and that
        they could not help him. Over the course of several minutes, Ran-
        dall wrapped part of the plexiglass with pamphlets to protect his
        hands. Randall began approaching the double doors where the of-
        ﬁcers were located, and the oﬃcers backed up further away from
        him. Randall then shut the door that had been opened, closing
        himself in the hallway.
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023    Page: 6 of 16

        6                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10244

               Randall opened one of the double doors again, stating the
        police had not left yet even though he had asked them to. Deputy
        Almanza-Londono asked him to stay where he was and back oﬀ,
        and reiterated that they did not want to kill him. Randall kept com-
        ing toward the oﬃcers with the plexiglass shards in his hands, and
        the oﬃcers kept backing away from him. Randall warned the of-
        ﬁcers not to tase him because that was only going to make him
        rush them, and that he had on two sweatshirts so a taser would not
        work. Randall then went back through the double doors and
        closed himself in the hallway again. By this time, backup had ar-
        rived, and more oﬃcers were in the hallway.
               Deputy Machado arrived and asked for an oﬃcer with a “less
        lethal” method of resolving the situation. Deputy Wilson DeJesus
        then arrived with a “less lethal” launcher which used bean bags.
        Deputy DeJesus began speaking to Randall through the closed dou-
        ble doors and told Randall he did not want to kill him. Randall
        stated he did not want to live anymore. Deputy DeJesus oﬀered to
        help him, but Randall said Deputy DeJesus could not help him.
               Deputy DeJesus told the other oﬃcers not to shoot their
        guns just because they heard the sound of the less lethal launcher.
        Deputy DeJesus and other oﬃcers discussed Randall’s location be-
        tween the double doors and the emergency exit door, and that
        there was broken plexiglass on the ground on the other side of the
        double doors that Randall had broken. Deputy DeJesus stated that
        he would not have to walk in the double doors because his less le-
        thal launcher would reach far enough. Deputy DeJesus told
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023    Page: 7 of 16

        23-10244              Opinion of the Court                        7

        Randall that if he opened the door, he would deploy his less lethal
        launcher and it was going to hurt.
               Sergeant Silva, a supervisor, developed a plan to open one of
        the double doors, DeJesus to use the less lethal launcher, Deputy
        Riggs to have a taser ready to use, and Deputy Machado and Dep-
        uty O’Dor to use lethal force if necessary. Sergeant Silva then di-
        rected one of the oﬃcers standing guard outside the emergency
        exit door on the other side of the hallway, to tap on the door and
        create a distraction so that Randall would back up away from the
        double doors before Deputy DeJesus deployed the less lethal
        launcher.
               When the door opened, Deputy DeJesus deployed the less
        lethal launcher, but its shots either did not hit or did not subdue
        Randall. Randall kept coming toward the open door with shards
        of plexiglass in his hands. Deputy Machado, Deputy O’Dor, and
        Sergeant Silva then discharged their ﬁrearms as Randall crossed the
        threshold of the double doors, hitting Randall multiple times. Fire
        rescue transported Randall to the hospital where he passed away.
                      II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                Leonard ﬁled a Complaint in state court on November 6,
        2020, and the case was removed to the Southern District of Florida
        on March 22, 2021. As relevant to this appeal, Leonard asserted
        Sergeant Silva, Deputy O’Dor, and Deputy Machado violated Ran-
        dall’s constitutional rights with excessive use of force, 42 U.S.C.
        § 1983. Leonard also asserted state battery claims against Sergeant
USCA11 Case: 23-10244      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 8 of 16

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10244

        Silva, Deputy O’Dor, Deputy Machado, and the BSO (collectively,
        the BSO Defendants)
               The BSO Defendants moved for summary judgment on the
        excessive force and battery claims, asserting they were entitled to
        qualiﬁed immunity on the excessive force claims, and that there
        was no issue of fact that their actions were reasonable under the
        circumstances as to the battery claims. Leonard opposed summary
        judgment, arguing it was precluded because there were disputed
        facts that must be weighed by a jury and the BSO Defendants ac-
        tions were unreasonable. Speciﬁcally, Leonard contended that dis-
        puted facts regarding (1) whether Randall was armed with a lethal
        weapon, (2) whether Randall was contained, and (3) whether the
        BSO Defendants adequately de-escalated the situation precluded
        summary judgment.
                        III. DISTRICT COURT ORDER
                The district court granted summary judgment to the BSO
        Defendants. The court began by discussing the disputed facts
        raised by Leonard to determine whether they precluded summary
        judgment. As to whether Randall had a lethal weapon, Leonard
        relied on the testimony of an expert who testiﬁed the plexiglass was
        brittle, not a bladed weapon, and would not damage someone to a
        “great extent.” And the hospital staﬀ testiﬁed the pencil given to
        Randall was a special 10 cm long pencil given to patients because it
        lacks a metal tip and is too short to cause injury. The district court
        considered this testimony, but also noted the same expert had
        stated the plexiglass was sharp, was wrapped in pamphlets to
USCA11 Case: 23-10244      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023      Page: 9 of 16

        23-10244               Opinion of the Court                          9

        prevent injury to Randall’s hands, and could cause injury, a punc-
        ture or even death had Randall reached the BSO oﬃcers and punc-
        tured a jugular.
                However, regardless of the actual characteristics of the pen-
        cil or plexiglass, the court found there was no issue of fact that both
        items were used in a threatening manner that could reasonably be
        perceived by oﬃcers on the scene as being capable of causing seri-
        ous harm. See Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843, 852 (11th Cir. 2010)
        (stating “[t]he relevant question is whether a reasonable oﬃcer in
        [an oﬃcer’s] shoes would have believed that [Randall] was gravely
        dangerous”). The 911 callers stated Randall was threatening to stab
        hospital staﬀ in the neck with a pencil, and hospital staﬀ told BSO
        deputies upon arrival that Randall was threatening to stab people
        with a pencil. Further, Randall covered the plexiglass with pam-
        phlets to protect his hands from injury and threatened the BSO
        deputies with his plexiglass, and he said he would charge at them,
        that the plexiglass could cut skin easily, and that it was either going
        to be him or the BSO deputies who would die. The ﬁrst BSO dep-
        uties on the scene also warned the later-arriving oﬃcers as they ar-
        rived about Randall having glass, suggesting that it was dangerous
        if Randall charged at them. The reasonableness of the use of force
        must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable oﬃcer on the
        scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Graham v.
        Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). The district court determined in-
        formation not known by the oﬃcers about the non-lethality of the
        plexiglass and pencil was immaterial to the qualiﬁed immunity
        analysis which focuses on whether an oﬃcer’s actions were
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 09/20/2023    Page: 10 of 16

        10                    Opinion of the Court                 23-10244

        objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances con-
        fronting them.
                As to whether Randall was contained, Leonard asserted hos-
        pital staﬀ and BSO oﬃcers had described Randall as contained or
        barricaded in the hallway, and Deputy Machado and Sergeant Silva
        said Randall was not a threat while he was in the hallway. The dis-
        trict court rejected that a jury could reasonably ﬁnd the oﬃcers
        used excessive force under these facts because “the record also
        shows that Randall could have left the hallway and engaged with”
        the BSO oﬃcers. The court reasoned “[t]he record here shows that
        it was possible for Randall to leave the hallway and was ‘contained’
        only in so far as [BSO oﬃcers] were stationed at both exits.” The
        double doors were unlocked, and Randall could have opened them
        at any time to engage with the oﬃcers. While the emergency exit
        door was locked, Randall had been kicking it, and hospital staﬀ told
        BSO oﬃcers the door could be unlocked with three pushes. The
        court determined the dispute between the meaning of contained
        and barricaded did not matter for purposes of summary judgment
        because it was “undisputed that Randall could have left the hall-
        way.”
               As to whether the BSO oﬃcers failed to adequately de-esca-
        late the situation, Leonard asserts Deputy DeJesus yelled at and
        threatened Randall, Sergeant Silva was on the scene only a short
        time before coming up with his plan and did not interact with Ran-
        dall, no negotiator was called, and certain de-escalation techniques
        were not used. Leonard’s expert witness testiﬁed there were
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 11 of 16

        23-10244               Opinion of the Court                        11

        alternative solutions that should have been attempted to de-esca-
        late the situation.
               The district court determined even if it assumed alternate
        de-escalation techniques were possible or warranted, summary
        judgment would not be precluded. Basically, that the oﬃcers could
        have acted diﬀerently did not preclude summary judgment because
        “so long as a reasonable oﬃcer could have believed that his conduct
        was justiﬁed, a plaintiﬀ cannot succeed by simply producing an ex-
        pert’s report that an oﬃcer’s conduct leading up to a deadly con-
        frontation was imprudent, inappropriate or even reckless.” Knight
        v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 856 F.3d 795, 813-814 (11th Cir. 2017) (quota-
        tion marks omitted).
                Having found the disputed facts did not preclude summary
        judgment, the district court turned to whether Leonard had shown
        a violation of clearly established constitutional law. The court cited
        Robinson v. Arrugueta, 415 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2005), which
        states it is “constitutionally reasonable for an oﬃcer to use deadly
        force when he has probable cause to believe that his own life is in
        peril.” The court noted the following undisputed facts:
              (1) the 911 calls and BWC footage reﬂect Hospital
              staﬀ telling dispatch and several BSO deputies that
              Randall was armed with a pencil and glass and threat-
              ening to stab people—with one 911 caller adding that
              Randall was attempting to stab people—and this in-
              formation was conveyed to Sergeant Silva; (2) Ran-
              dall, while holding plexiglass in pamphlets to
USCA11 Case: 23-10244    Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 12 of 16

        12                    Opinion of the Court                23-10244

              seemingly protect his hands, made suicidal state-
              ments, such as that he would force the BSO deputies
              to kill him, that either he or the BSO deputies would
              die in the encounter, that other BCSO deputies were
              not going to have time to arrive before something
              happened, and he would charge at the BSO deputies
              with a weapon he claimed could go through skin eas-
              ily—with the Deputy Defendants either hearing this
              or receiving secondhand accounts from other BSO
              deputies; (3) Randall resisted arrest and stated he did
              not want to listen to BSO deputies or surrender—
              these events were witnessed by the Deputy Defend-
              ants or conveyed to them; (4) Randall could exit the
              southern unlocked door and engage the Deputy De-
              fendants, and the Deputy Defendants were told Ran-
              dall could open the locked emergency door to the
              north; (5) the Deputy Defendants—before using le-
              thal force—tried to subdue Randall with a less lethal
              launcher; and (6) it was only after the less lethal
              launcher was unsuccessful and Randall charged at the
              Deputy Defendants with plexiglass that the Deputy
              Defendants used deadly force to shoot Randall. (Cita-
              tions omitted).
        The district court determined the facts showed a reasonable oﬃcer
        likely would have perceived Randall as posing an imminent threat
        of serious physical harm.
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023    Page: 13 of 16

        23-10244               Opinion of the Court                       13

                However, even assuming a constitutional violation, the dis-
        trict court concluded Leonard could not show from clearly estab-
        lished law that the oﬃcers had fair and clear notice that their ac-
        tions were unconstitutional. The cases cited by Leonard had facts
        including ﬂeeing suspects who made no threats and had no visible
        weapons, in contrast to Randall’s undisputed threats of violence
        and charging at oﬃcers with plexiglass in his hands. Thus, Leonard
        was unable to meet his burden to overcome the Deputy Defend-
        ants’ qualiﬁed immunity defense.
               Lastly, the district court stated its ﬁnding that the Deputy
        Defendants acted reasonably under the facts also applied to the
        battery claims. Because the Deputy Defendants acted reasonably
        under the circumstances, the state law battery claims also failed,
        and the district court granted summary judgment on those claims
        as well.
                                  IV. ANALYSIS
               Leonard contends the district court erred in granting quali-
        ﬁed immunity to the BSO Defendants and granting summary judg-
        ment on the state battery claims because (1) the district court erred
        in making the factual determination that Randall was a felon ﬂee-
        ing arrest; (2) the district court erred in making the determination
        there was an immediate threat of harm posed by the objects in
        Randall’s hands; (3) the district court erred in making the determi-
        nation that Randall was not contained; (4) the district court erred
        in resolving the factual dispute about whether appropriate de-esca-
        lation occurred and in declining to consider the oﬃcer’s testimony
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 14 of 16

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10244

        regarding their understanding of reasonable de-escalation; (5) the
        district court erred in making a ﬁnding regarding Randall’s intent
        with respect to whether he engaged in dialogue; (6) the district
        court erred in ﬁnding the oﬃcers acted reasonably in disposing of
        the battery claims.
               We have conducted a de novo review of this case, reading the
        record and watching the video evidence. See Mobley v. Palm Beach
        Cnty. Sheriﬀ Dep’t, 783 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2015) (“We review
        de novo a grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualiﬁed im-
        munity, drawing all inferences and viewing all evidence in the light
        most favorable to the nonmoving party.”). After this review, we
        aﬃrm the district court. As to Leonard’s contentions on appeal,
        (1) the district court did not make a factual ﬁnding that Randall was
        a felon ﬂeeing arrest; (2) the district court did not err in determin-
        ing that the plexiglass was used in a threatening manner that could
        reasonably be perceived by oﬃcers on the scene as being capable
        of causing serious harm; (3) the district court did not err in deter-
        mining Randall was not contained because he could open the dou-
        ble doors at any time and could unlock the emergency exit door
        (which he had been kicking) with three pushes; (4) the district court
        did not err in determining that even if alternative de-escalation
        techniques were appropriate, “[s]o long as a reasonable oﬃcer
        could have believed that his conduct was justiﬁed, a plaintiﬀ cannot
        succeed by simply producing an expert’s report that an oﬃcer’s
        conduct leading up to a deadly confrontation was imprudent, in-
        appropriate or even reckless”; and (5) the district court did not err
USCA11 Case: 23-10244     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023     Page: 15 of 16

        23-10244               Opinion of the Court                        15

        in determining Randall made several statements that did not show
        an intent to engage in dialogue.
               The district court also did not err in concluding that an of-
        ﬁcer reasonably could have believed that Randall posed a threat of
        serious physical harm, either to the oﬃcer or others and that it was
        reasonable and constitutionally permissible for an oﬃcer to use
        deadly force against a person who posed an imminent threat of se-
        rious physical harm to the oﬃcers or others. See Robinson, 415 F.3d
        at 1255-56. And, even assuming a constitutional violation, no
        clearly established law put the oﬃcers on notice that their conduct
        was unconstitutional. Thus, the district court did not err in grant-
        ing qualiﬁed immunity to Sergeant Silva, Deputy Machado, and
        Deputy O’Dor. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)
        (“The doctrine of qualiﬁed immunity protects government oﬃcials
        from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
        violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
        which a reasonable person would have known.”).
                Lastly, the district court did not err in concluding Leonard’s
        state law battery claims also failed as the use of force was reasona-
        ble under the circumstances. See Johnson v. City of Miami Beach, 18
        F.4th 1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining Florida law considers
        excessive force used by police oﬃcers as battery, and determines
        whether the force was excessive by considering whether the
        amount of force was reasonable under the circumstances).
USCA11 Case: 23-10244         Document: 26-1          Date Filed: 09/20/2023           Page: 16 of 16

        16                          Opinion of the Court                         23-10244

                                      V. CONCLUSION
                We aﬃrm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 3
                AFFRIMED.

        3  Leonard contends the district court erred in denying his motion to alter or
        amend judgment for lack of jurisdiction. We agree the district court should
        not have denied for a lack of jurisdiction, as the district court still had jurisdic-
        tion over the portion of the case for which Leonard was requesting consider-
        ation. However, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, re-
        gardless of whether that ground was relied upon or considered below. PDVSA
        US Litig. Tr. V. LukOil Pan Ams. LLC, 65 F.4th 556, 562 (11th Cir. 2023). There
        was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to alter or amend as Leon-
        ard’s argument regarding the timing and manner of the decision to use less
        lethal force as unreasonable was not clearly raised in the response to the sum-
        mary judgment motion, and, in any case, that argument would fail for the
        same reasons as the discussion on lethal force. See Raney v. Aware Woman Ctr.
        for Choice, Inc., 224 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2000).