Court Opinion

ID: 9950046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 13:01:17.508828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:10.824942
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11816      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                     No. 23-11816
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       TIDERA HARRIS,
                                                          Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,

                                                                Defendant,

       GREGORY HARVEY,
       In his individual capacity,

                                                      Defendant-Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 23-11816     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11816

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00799-WKW-SMD
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This case arises from an ill-fated series of events that began
       with a domestic violence report and ended with Tidera Harris
       being shot by an officer of the Montgomery Police Department.
       Though Harris’s injuries are unfortunate, the record shows that the
       officer did not use constitutionally excessive force. The district
       court therefore erred when it denied qualified immunity because
       the evidence in the record established that Harris’s Fourth
       Amendment rights were not violated in this encounter.
                                        I.
              The events leading to this appeal began when Chimeka
       Mineﬁeld, the ﬁancé of Tidera Harris and mother of several of his
       children, snuck out of her own home to seek her neighbor’s
       assistance in calling the police. Mineﬁeld was scared because Harris
       was, as she said, “acting up”—throwing furniture and “acting
       crazy.” Though her neighbor warned her not to go back, Mineﬁeld
       could not stand to leave her children alone in the house with Harris,
       so she returned home. Mineﬁeld’s neighbor informed the 911
       operator that Harris had several warrants against him, that he had
USCA11 Case: 23-11816     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 3 of 8

       23-11816               Opinion of the Court                        3

       been beating Mineﬁeld, and that she did not know if Harris had a
       weapon. The neighbor was so concerned about Mineﬁeld’s
       wellbeing that she called back two more times, concerned that the
       police were taking too long to arrive.
              As a result of these calls, Oﬃcer Gregory Harvey was
       dispatched to Mineﬁeld’s home, along with Oﬃcer Helton as
       backup. From the dispatch, Harvey knew that this was a domestic
       violence call, which raised a sense of urgency and the possibility of
       a physical altercation. Harvey was also told that there were
       warrants out against Harris. Upon arrival, Harvey could hear a
       verbal altercation inside the home, so he entered the residence
       without knocking to intervene before things escalated.
              Mineﬁeld invited Harvey further into the home, telling him
       that Harvey needed to “get him”—referring to Harris. Attempting
       to de-escalate the situation, Harvey asked Harris to step outside
       with him. But despite Harvey’s repeated commands, Harris
       refused to follow orders. Instead, Harris began rummaging
       through the dimly lit house, requiring Harvey to utilize his
       ﬂashlight so that the oﬃcers could see Harris’s hands and actions.
       Harris continued to pat his pockets, walk around the house, and
       dig through clothing and furniture. He also kept acting as though
       he was receiving phone calls—lifting the phone to his ear and
       walking away from the oﬃcers—but they did not hear the phone
       ring, vibrate, or otherwise indicate that he was receiving any calls.
       Oﬃcer Harvey was concerned that Harris might have been looking
       for a weapon.
USCA11 Case: 23-11816     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-11816

              Finally, Harris stepped outside. He willingly gave Harvey his
       name and date of birth. Meanwhile, though, Harris kept glancing
       toward the Dodge Charger with dark tinted windows that was
       parked in the driveway. Harris then picked up his phone again as if
       to answer an imaginary phone call. He began walking toward the
       vehicle, and once he was around to the driver’s side, Harris abruptly
       took oﬀ in a sprint toward the driver’s door. Harvey gave chase and
       shouted “No.” Upon rounding the back of the vehicle, he saw
       Harris reaching into the car and could not see his hands. Fearing
       that Harris was reaching for a weapon and forced to make a split-
       second decision, Harvey ﬁred three shots. One bullet struck
       Harris’s shoulder and one hit him in the back. An outside
       investigation by the State Bureau of Investigations determined that
       Harvey’s actions were a reasonable exercise of his oﬃcial duties
       under the totality of the circumstances.
               Harris’s operative complaint sets out four claims for relief:
       (1) assault and battery under Alabama state law against Harvey; (2)
       § 1983 excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment
       against Harvey; (3) Monell liability against the City of Montgomery
       and the Montgomery Police Department; and (4) Negligence
       and/or Wantonness under Alabama state law against Harvey. The
       defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. As
       relevant to this appeal, Harvey argued that he was entitled to
       summary judgment because he was entitled to immunity—
       qualiﬁed immunity for the Fourth Amendment claims, and state
       agent immunity for the state law claims. After argument, the
       district court granted the motion with respect to the Monell claim
USCA11 Case: 23-11816     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 5 of 8

       23-11816               Opinion of the Court                        5

       against the City but denied summary judgment to Harvey on all
       the claims against him. This appeal followed.
                                        II.
              This court reviews the grant of summary judgment based
       on qualiﬁed immunity de novo. Powell v. Snook, 25 F.4th 912, 920
       (11th Cir. 2022). Under this standard, we construe all facts and
       draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
       party. Id.
                                       III.
              To demonstrate that qualiﬁed immunity does not apply in
       this case, Harris must show that Harvey (1) violated one of his
       constitutional rights, and (2) that it was clearly established at the
       time of the conduct that Harvey’s speciﬁc actions did so. Id.
       Because “an objectively reasonable oﬃcer in the same situation
       could have believed the use of force was not excessive,” Harris
       failed to show that Harvey violated a constitutional right and
       Harvey is therefore entitled to qualiﬁed immunity. Brown v. City of
       Huntsville, Alabama, 608 F.3d 724, 738 (11th Cir. 2010).
              The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
       searches and seizures includes the right to be free from the
       excessive use of force. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394
       (1989). To determine whether a use of force was “reasonable,”
       courts must engage in a “careful balancing of the nature and
       quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment
       interests against the countervailing governmental interests at
       stake.” Id. at 396 (quotation omitted). This is an objective inquiry:
USCA11 Case: 23-11816      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11816

       “the question is whether the oﬃcers’ actions are ‘objectively
       reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting
       them.” Id. at 397. Critically, however, this inquiry must be judged
       from the perspective of a “reasonable oﬃcer on the scene, rather
       than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” and allow for
       consideration of the fact that oﬃcers must often make “split-
       second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and
       rapidly evolving.” Id. at 396–97.
              For better or for worse, this test is fact speciﬁc, and requires
       courts to “slosh our way through the factbound morass of
       ‘reasonableness.’” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383 (2007). There
       are, however, several factors that can help guide the analysis. These
       include (1) “the severity of the crime at issue,” (2) “whether the
       suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the oﬃcers or
       others,” and (3) “whether he is actively resisting arrest or
       attempting to evade arrest by ﬂight.” Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d
       1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).
              First, Harvey had been discharged to Mineﬁeld’s home on a
       domestic violence call and warned that Harris had warrants
       outstanding—these are some of the most dangerous calls for
       oﬃcers. Second, though Harris did not pose an immediate threat
       when the oﬃcers arrived at the scene, his progressive
       noncompliance and dash to the vehicle—a common place to store
       weapons—created a threatening situation in which both oﬃcers
       feared for their lives. His sudden, unprovoked movement, coupled
       with the pattern of evasive behavior, could alert an objectively
USCA11 Case: 23-11816      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 7 of 8

       23-11816               Opinion of the Court                         7

       reasonable oﬃcer of an imminent threat to his safety and the safety
       of the others standing nearby. See Oakes v. Anderson, 494 F. App’x
       35 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Third, Harris repeatedly and
       blatantly ignored Harvey’s commands and resisted Harvey’s eﬀorts
       to de-escalate and investigate the alleged domestic violence
       incident.
             Under these circumstances, the balance of the evidence
       shows that a reasonable oﬃcer at the scene could have found that
       shooting Harris as he reached in the car was not an excessive use
       of force. Accordingly, Oﬃcer Harvey is entitled to qualiﬁed
       immunity for his § 1983 claim.
              That means Harvey is also entitled to state agent immunity
       on Harris’s state law claims. “The Alabama Supreme Court has
       largely equated qualiﬁed immunity with state agent immunity.”
       Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama, 974 F.3d 1217, 1236 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (quotation omitted) (alteration adopted). Thus, for the same
       reasons that Harvey is entitled to qualiﬁed immunity on the § 1983
       claim, he is also entitled to state agent immunity on the state law
       claims.
                                     *      *       *
               It is regrettable when a person is shot and hindsight shows
       that it could have been avoided. But “tragedy does not equate with
       unreasonableness.” Powell, 25 F.4th at 925 (quotation omitted).
       Because Oﬃcer Harvey’s use of force was not objectively
       unreasonable under the circumstances of this case, there was no
       Fourth Amendment violation. The district court’s decision
USCA11 Case: 23-11816   Document: 27-1   Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 8 of 8

       8                  Opinion of the Court              23-11816

       denying qualiﬁed and state agent immunity is therefore
       REVERSED.