Use Back
Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION
RAMON A. MERCADO,
Plaintiff,
vs. THE CITY OF ORLANDO, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO.:
6:03-cv-227-ORL-18KRS
June 24, 2004, Decided
June 24, 2004, Filed
ORDER
THIS CAUSE
comes before the Court upon Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 52,
filed April 21, 2004), to which Plaintiff has responded in opposition (Doc. 54,
filed May 6, 2004). After considering the arguments set forth by the parties,
the Court hereby grants Defendants' motion and issues the following amended
order.
I.
BACKGROUND
On the morning of June 29, 2002,
Plaintiff's wife, Ibis Mercado ("Ms. Mercado"), told Plaintiff that
she was going to leave him. Plaintiff became upset and told her that he would
kill himself if she left him. He wrapped a telephone line around his neck and
wrapped the other end around a ceiling vent. Plaintiff stated in his deposition
that he planned to use the telephone line to hang himself. He also used a
kitchen knife to make multiple cuts across his arm. Plaintiff then held the
knife with both hands against his chest and pointed it at his heart. Ms.
Mercado took the phone and ran from the apartment. Plaintiff locked the door
behind her.
Ms. Mercado called the Orlando
Police Department, and Defendant Officer Ramfis Padilla ("Officer
Padilla"), Defendant Officer Christina Rouse ("Officer Rouse"),
and other officers were dispatched to investigate. Ms. Mercado told the
officers that Plaintiff was armed with a knife and was threatening to commit
suicide. The officers remained outside the apartment for twenty to twenty-five
minutes trying, but failing, to make verbal contact with Plaintiff. Ms. Mercado
gave the officers a key and they entered the apartment. They found Plaintiff
sitting on the kitchen floor and crying, holding the knife with both hands and
pointing it to his heart. The telephone line was still wrapped around his neck,
but no longer attached to the ceiling.
Plaintiff alleges that an
officer ordered him two times to put the knife down. Officer Padilla testified
in his deposition that he repeatedly
ordered Plaintiff to put the knife down, in both English and Spanish. Plaintiff
did not put the knife down, although he made no threatening movements toward
the officers. Officer Rouse ordered Officer Padilla to use the "Sage SL6
Launcher" ("Sage launcher") and hit Plaintiff two times.
According to Defendants' expert, Major Steven Ijames, the Sage launcher fires a
polyurethane (soft plastic) baton that is 1.5 inches wide and travels much
slower than a bullet and delivers less impact. n1 The Sage launcher is
primarily used to protect persons from [*1270]self-inflicted injury, when a
"night stick" would be unsafe or impractical to use. It is not
designed to penetrate the body and generally causes only minor bruises or
abrasions. (Ijames Aff., PP 5-7.)
Standing
approximately six feet away from Plaintiff, Officer Padilla alleges that he
aimed for Plaintiff's shoulder. Officer Padilla fired twice and hit Plaintiff
once in the head. The shot fractured Plaintiff's skull and caused injuries to
his brain. Plaintiff takes medication to prevent seizures and suffers from
headaches, loss of memory, loss of balance, insomnia, dizziness, stuttering,
loss of sensation and movement, loss of strength, and sensitivity to light. The
Social Security Administration classified Plaintiff as disabled and he no
longer works.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Summary
Judgment
A court
will grant summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); see, e.g., Stachel v. City of Cape Canaveral, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1329
(M.D. Fla. 1999). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the
case under the applicable substantive law. Disputed issues of material fact
preclude the entry of summary judgment, but factual disputes that are
irrelevant or unnecessary do not. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 250, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986).
The moving
party bears the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material
fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). In
determining whether the moving party has satisfied its burden, the Court
considers all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in a light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion and resolves all reasonable doubts
against the moving party. Matsushita Elec. Ind. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 587-88, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986). The moving party may
rely solely on his pleadings to satisfy its burden Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24.
When the
non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may meet
its initial burden in one of two ways. It may support the motion by directing
the Court's attention to affirmative evidence "that negates an essential
element of the non-moving party's claim." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 331
(Brennan, J., dissenting). n2 Alternatively, the moving party may point out to
the court the "absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's
case." Id. at 324; Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115-16
(11th Cir. 1993).
If the
moving party shows the absence of a genuine material fact that is triable, in
either of these ways, and that it is entitled to judgment, the burden shifts to
the non-moving party to make a sufficient showing to establish the essential
elements of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. In contrast to the moving party, the non-moving party
may not rest solely on her pleadings to satisfy this burden and escape summary
judgment. Id. at 324. It must designate evidence within depositions, answers to
interrogatories or admissions that indicates that there is a genuine issue for
trial. [*1271] Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. If the evidence
offered by the non-moving party is merely colorable, or is not significantly
probative, the Court may grant summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50.
B. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983
Although
Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, it provides a conduit by
which aggrieved parties may recover against those who have violated their
rights under federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Skinner v. City of
Miami, Fla., 62 F.3d 344, 347 (11th Cir. 1995). To recover under Section 1983,
Plaintiff must prove that Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive
the Plaintiff of a right conferred by federal law. See White v. Scrivner Corp.,
594 F.2d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1979). n3
In addition
to the Fourth Amendment claims discussed below, Plaintiff also presented claims
under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth
Amendment. Defendants failed to move to dismiss these claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By neglecting any mention of
these claims in their motion for summary judgment, Defendants failed to meet
their burden at summary judgment, which is discussed in the previous section.
Defendants also failed to abide by Local Rule 3.01 (a), which requires a
"brief or legal memorandum with citation of legal authorities in support
of the relief requested." Defendants now argue in their motion for reconsideration,
properly supported with legal authority, that these claims are meritless.
Defendants are, of course, correct. See Riley v. Camp, 130 F.3d 958, 972 (11th
Cir. 1997) (no Fifth Amendment claim
absent federal action); Purvis v. City of Orlando, 273 F. Supp.2d 1321, 1325
(M.D.Fla. 2003) (Sixth Amendment not
implicated until adversarial judicial proceedings have been initiated); id.
(Eighth Amendment protects only those convicted of a crime); Graham, 490 U.S.
at 396 (Fourth Amendment, rather than
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process approach, should be used to
evaluate excessive force cases). The Court accordingly grants summary judgment
with respect to Plaintiff's claims under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments.
1. Officer
Padilla and Officer Rouse: Individual Capacity Claims
Plaintiff alleges that by
shooting him in the head with the Sage launcher, Officer Padilla and Officer
Rouse violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive
force. n4 Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse assert the defense of qualified
immunity. The Eleventh Circuit has established a two-part analysis to determine
whether qualified immunity is available. Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1545
(11th Cir. 1995). First, the defendant must prove that he was acting within the
scope of his discretionary authority when the alleged wrongful action took
place. Id. (citing Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir. 1983)).
There is no dispute in the instant case that the challenged act was within the
discretionary authority of Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse. The burden then
shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant violated the plaintiff's
constitutional rights and [*1272] that these rights were clearly established.
Id.
Claims of
excessive force are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective
reasonableness" standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 104 L. Ed.
2d 443, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989). To determine whether the force used was
objectively reasonable, courts must balance "the nature and quality of the
intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the
countervailing governmental interests at stake." Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d
1188, 1197 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). Application of
the reasonableness standard "requires careful attention to the facts and
circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at
issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the
officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting
to evade arrest by flight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; see Post v. City of
Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993); Durruthy v. Pastor, 351
F.3d 1080, 1094 (11th Cir. 2003). Use of force must be judged on a case-by-case
basis "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather
than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Post, 7 F.3d at 1559. In making
this determination, the Court must resolve all factual disputes about Defendants'
conduct in Plaintiff's favor. Foy v. Holston, 94 F.3d 1528, 1530 n.1 (11th Cir.
1996).
Because the officers were trying
to resolve an attempted suicide, rather than halt the progression of a crime,
the instant case does not fit neatly into the Graham analysis. The Court cannot
assess the "severity of the crime" because suicide and attempted
suicide are not crimes in Florida. See Krischer v. McIver, 697 So. 2d 97, 100
(Fla. 1997). Plaintiff did not pose an immediate threat to anyone other than
himself: he was not aggressive or belligerent, and he did not threaten the
officers, verbally or physically. Plaintiff did not physically resist arrest
nor did he flee. The Supreme Court
specified, however, that the Graham balancing scheme would apply not only to
excessive force used during an arrest, but to excessive force used during any
"other 'seizure' of a free citizen." n5 Graham, 490 U.S. at 395. The
Court will accordingly adapt the Graham factors to the case at hand in order to
weigh the competing governmental and individual interests.
It is undisputed from the
deposition testimony of Plaintiff and Officer Padilla that Plaintiff was
holding a knife with two hands and pointing it at his heart. n6 He refused to
drop the knife after being ordered at least twice to do so. Although [*1273]
Plaintiff did not turn "blue" until after he was shot, he also had a
telephone line wrapped around his neck. n7 Plaintiff was posing an immediate
threat of harm to himself, and the officers acted to promote a strong governmental
interest in preserving Plaintiff's life. This interest alone may justify the
use of force See Monday, 118 F.3d at 1104-05 (interest in transporting suicidal
plaintiff to hospital justified use of pepper spray to subdue him); see also
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 281-282, 111 L. Ed.
2d 224, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990) (in the
context of refusal of life-sustaining treatment, the state has an
"unqualified interest in the preservation of human life" which must
be weighed against the individual's constitutionally protected interests).
The Court must weigh the
interest in preserving Plaintiff's life against the nature and quality of the
intrusion. The intrusion was significant: Plaintiff's skull was fractured,
causing lasting damage. Officer Padilla did not warn Plaintiff before shooting.
On the other hand, the situation was highly volatile. After being ordered at
least twice, Plaintiff refused to drop the knife, a deadly weapon. Judging this
use of force "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,
rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight," Post, 7 F.3d at 1559, the
Court finds that a reasonable officer could have shot Plaintiff in the head. n8
Even if Officer Padilla and
Officer Rouse had violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights, the Court
concludes that the law on this violation was not clearly established. For a constitutional right to be clearly
established, "'the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a
reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that
right.'" Williams v. Alabama State Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir.
1997) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523, 107
S. Ct. 3034 (1987)). Plaintiffs may show law is clearly established in any one
of three ways.
First,
Plaintiff may point to "materially similar" controlling precedent
that prohibits the challenged behavior. n9 Plaintiff cites Vinyard v. Wilson,
in which the Eleventh Circuit found that where the plaintiff was under arrest,
handcuffed behind her back, and secured in the back seat of a patrol car with a
protective screen between her and the officer, the officer used excessive force
in applying pepper spray to try to stop her from screaming insults at the officers.
311 F.3d 1340, 1355 (11th Cir. 2002). The instant case is fairly
distinguishable: the plaintiff in Vinyard was securely under the control
[*1274] of the officers and not threatening harm to anyone or carrying a
dangerous weapon, whereas Plaintiff was not under the control of the officers,
was holding a knife, and had threatened to kill himself. Plaintiff also fails
to produce any controlling precedent that a warning was required before
shooting in materially similar circumstances, nor is the Court aware of any. n10
The law may
also be clearly established by some broad principle stated in case law.
Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1351; Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252,
2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10586, 2004 WL 1178465, 21 (11th Cir. 2004). For example,
a court may hold that a certain type of conduct is unconstitutional without
tying that determination to a particularized set of facts. See Vinyard, 311
F.3d at 1351. "If a broad principle in case law is to establish clearly
the law applicable to a specific set of facts facing a governmental
official," however, "it must do so 'with obvious clarity' to the
point that every objectively reasonable government official facing the
circumstances would know that the official's conduct did violate federal law when
the official acted" Id. Plaintiff argues that the law is "clearly
established that using deadly force in a non-deadly situation violates the
Fourth Amendment." (Doc. 35 at 12 (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,
85 L. Ed. 2d 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985)). This principle is certainly
established, n11 but it does not establish the law applicable to the specific
set of facts facing Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse with the requisite
clarity. In a case such as this, an officer would have to assess whether the
force is deadly and whether the suspect posed an imminent threat of danger to
others. n12 Officer Padilla's action, then, is not subject to a "broad
principle" within the meaning of Vinyard. See also Marsh v. Butler County,
Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1032 (11th Cir. 2001) (specific case law will almost
always be necessary where the legal standard is a highly general one, such as
"to act reasonably" or "to act with probable cause"); Jones
v. City of Dothan, 121 F.3d 1456, 1460 (11th Cir.1997) (broad principle that
use of excessive force by a law
enforcement officer is a constitutional violation was insufficient to clearly
establish the law); cf. Holloman ex rel. Holloman, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10586,
2004 WL 1178465, 21 (holding that law was clearly established by general
principle that directed teachers to assess whether a student is engaged in
"expression" [*1275] and whether the expression has a
"non-negligible disruptive effect").
Finally,
"the words of a federal statute or federal constitutional provision may be
so clear and the conduct so bad that case law is not needed to establish that
the conduct cannot be lawful." Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1350. To fall within
this narrow exception, Plaintiff must show "that the official's conduct
lies so obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits that
the unlawfulness of the conduct was readily apparent to the official,
notwithstanding the lack of case law." Lee, 284 F.3d at 1198. In excessive
force cases, plaintiffs can overcome qualified immunity only if
"application of the [excessive force] standard would inevitably lead every
reasonable officer in [the Defendants'] position to conclude the force was
unlawful." Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 208 F.3d 919, 926-27
(11th Cir. 2000).
Assuming, without deciding, that
Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse violated department policy by shooting
Plaintiff in the head and failing to summon a crisis negotiation team, this
alone does not remove qualified immunity. n13 Section 1983 protects plaintiffs
from constitutional violations, not
violations of state statutes, administrative regulations, or
departmental policy. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 139,
104 S. Ct. 3012 (1984) (holding, in the context of "clearly established law,"
that "officials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their
qualified immunity merely because their conduct violates some statutory or
administrative provision."); Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402,1407 n.4 (11th
Cir. 1998) (plaintiffs cannot base claim on violation of departmental policy
alone).
Officer Padilla was faced with a
man who had threatened suicide and who refused to drop a knife he held to his
chest. Officer Padilla acted not to effectuate an arrest, but to prevent
Plaintiff from hurting himself. The Court cannot say that, in these
circumstances, the force used "was so far beyond the hazy border between
excessive and acceptable force that [Officer Padilla] had to know he was
violating the Constitution even without caselaw on point." Priester, 208
F.3d at 926-27. An example of acceptable force in subduing a suicidal person
would have been using a single burst of pepper spray. Monday, 118 F.3d at
1104-05. The Court hypothesizes that clearly excessive force would have been
shooting Plaintiff in the head with a bullet. This is a much closer case,
however, and the Court finds that Officer Padilla's use of the Sage launcher is
most appropriately classified as being within "the hazy border between
excessive and acceptable force."
The Court
also notes that when the Eleventh Circuit has found the law clearly established
under this narrow exception, the cases all include situations in which force
was used against a plaintiff who was already subdued. See Vinyard, 311 F.3d at
1355 (facts as above); Lee, 284 F.3d at 1199 (officers led plaintiff to the
back of her car and slammed her head against the trunk after she was arrested
and secured in handcuffs); Priester, 208 F.3d at 927 (officer released police
dog to attack plaintiff who was lying on the ground, did not [*1276] pose a
threat to officers or to anyone else, and was not attempting to flee or resist
arrest); Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir.2000) (officers beat
plaintiff even though he was handcuffed and did not resist, attempt to flee, or
struggle with the officers in any way); Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1419-20 (11th Cir. 1997)
(officer, while on plaintiff's back and handcuffing him, broke plaintiff's arm
requiring surgery for multiple fractures even though plaintiff at the time was
offering no resistance). The instant case clearly differs from the preceding
cases in that Plaintiff was not subdued, was not cooperating with police, was
holding a deadly weapon, and appeared to pose an imminent threat of harm to
himself.
The Court thus finds that the
law was not clearly established and that Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse, as
his supervising officer, are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants' motion
for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse.
2. The City
of Orlando
An official
capacity claim in a Section 1983 action "generally represents only another
way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an
agent," and is not a suit against the official personally. Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114, 105 S. Ct. 3099 (1985) (quoting
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, n. 55, 56 L. Ed. 2d
611, 98 S. Ct. 2018). Furthermore, "as long as the government entity
receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official capacity suit is, in
all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity."
Id. at 166. No damages may be recovered from the official in an official
capacity claim. Id. Because the City received notice of the claim, to the
extent that Plaintiff seeks redress from Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse in
their official capacity, the Court evaluates the action against the City.
The City
may not be held liable in a Section 1983 action solely on a respondeat superior
theory. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. The Plaintiff must be adversely effected
by a City policy or custom, which has been made by lawmakers or by those to
whom official acts may be attributed. Id. at 694. A policy may be promulgated
by the municipal legislative body, by an agency exercising authority delegated
by the municipal legislative body, or by an individual with "final
decision-making authority." Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469,
480, 483-84, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452, 106 S. Ct. 1292 (1986); Monell, 436 U.S. at 661
(1978). A municipality may also be liable if there is a "custom" of unlawful
behavior. The custom must be longstanding and widespread, and officials must
have known about the custom and have failed to stop it. Brown v. City of Fort
Lauderdale, 923 F.2d 1474, 1481 (11th Cir. 1991). Finally, a municipality may
be liable under "limited circumstances" for inadequate training. See
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 387, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412, 109 S. Ct. 1197
(1989); Gold v. City of Miami, 151 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 1998). Because a
municipality will rarely have an express policy of inadequate training, the
Supreme Court has held that the failure to train must evidence "deliberate
indifference" to the rights of the municipality's inhabitants. Canton, 489
U.S. at 388-89, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412.
Plaintiff alleged in his
complaint that the City promulgated vague, confusing, and contradictory rules
regarding the use of force. As Defendant has pointed out, however, the City has
in place constitutional [*1277] policies on the use of force. n14 Plaintiff has
failed to point out how these policies are vague, confusing or contradictory.
Plaintiff also alleged the City failed
to enforce departmental, state, and federal law regarding subduing of
potential suicidal citizens. Plaintiff has presented no examples of such federal
law and the Court cannot evaluate whether the City failed to enforce it. And as
discussed above, violation of departmental policy and state policy is
irrelevant in a constitutional inquiry.
The only claim for which
Plaintiff attempts to present evidence is his allegation that the City "promulgated
rules allowing citizens to be shot and using greater force than
necessary." n15 In support of this claim, Plaintiff alleges that his
sister asked Officer Burgos why the police shot Plaintiff in the head. Officer
Burgos allegedly responded they are trained to shoot for the head. (Vargas
Aff., P 4). This scant evidence is, however, inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. 42, P
7.) Furthermore, its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative
value. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiff has presented no admissible evidence of an
unconstitutional policy. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's
Fourth Amendment claim against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is accordingly
granted.
C.
Negligent Training and Negligent Supervision
Plaintiff
also brings state law claims against the City for negligent training and
negligent supervision. The City argues that these state law negligence claims
are barred by Florida's sovereign immunity.
The State of Florida and its subsidiaries, including municipalities, are
generally immune from tort liability, but Florida has waived this immunity
"under circumstances in which the state or agency or subdivision, if a
private person, would be liable to the claimant, in accordance with the general
laws of this state." See Fla. Const., Art. X, § 13; Fla. Stat. §
768.28(1). Florida courts have found, however, that the waiver of sovereign
immunity does not apply when the challenged acts are "discretionary"
rather than merely "operational." Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg,
260 F.3d 1260, 1262 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, to decide whether the City is
entitled to sovereign immunity, the Court must evaluate whether the acts
challenged by Plaintiff are more appropriately classified as discretionary or
operational in nature.
1. Negligent
Training
The
Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, held that "[a] city's decision
regarding how to train its officers and what subject matter to include in the
training is clearly an exercise of governmental discretion regarding fundamental
questions of policy and planning." Lewis, 260 F.3d at 1266 . The court
contrasted this type of governmental activity with the implementation or
operation of the police training program as it related to the officers involved
in the underlying offense. Id.; see also Borges v. [*1278] City of W. Palm
Beach, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10037, WL 397301, at *6-7 (S.D. Fla. 1994)
(finding sovereign immunity where complaint was in essence about strategies
implemented in sting operations because such decisions are discretionary). In
this case, Plaintiff states that he is challenging "the implementation of
those [training] programs, particularly as to Padilla and Rouse, on potentially
suicidal or emotionally distraught citizens." (Doc. 35 at 20). Plaintiff
has, however, offered no evidence of how these programs were implemented as to
Officer Padilla and Office Rouse. He has merely presented evidence of the
content of the training. The City's choice as to the content of the training is
a discretionary activity, and Plaintiff's claim is thus barred by sovereign
immunity. n16 Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff's
negligent training claim.
2.
Negligent Supervision
Plaintiff's
negligent supervision claim is not barred by sovereign immunity. The Court
finds that a challenge to the quality of supervision of Officer Padilla and
Rouse, rather than to the content of City's supervision policy, is a challenge
to an "operational" task rather than to a discretionary task. See
Newsome v. Dep't of Corr. of State of Fla., 435 So. 2d 887, 888-89 (Fla.lst DCA
1983) (contrasting the choice to classify a prisoner as a medium or minimum
security, which is discretionary, to the "operational" function of
actually supervising an inmate).
To sustain a negligent supervision claim, Plaintiff must prove the conventional elements of negligence: (1) existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury or damage of which he complains; (2) failure of the defendant to perform that duty; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff proximately caused by such failure. Geidel v. City of Bradenton Beach, 56 F. Supp.2d 1359, 1366 (M.D.Fla. 1999). Assuming the existence of a duty on the part of the City to Plaintiff, breach of this duty is established "when, during the course of employment, the employer becomes aware, or should have become aware, of problems with an employee that indicates his unfitness, and the employer fails to take further action such as investigation, discharge, or reassignment." Samedi v. Miami-Dade County, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1352-53 (S.D.Fla. 2001). Plaintiff has offered no evidence that the City had actual or constructive notice of any unfitness on the part of Officer Padilla or Officer Rouse prior to the shooting. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is accordingly granted on Plaintiff's negligent supervision claim.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the
foregoing discussion and upon careful consideration of the record and all
relevant law, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 52, filed April 21, 2004) is GRANTED. Defendant's motion
for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's remaining Section 1983 claim against the
City is accordingly granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE
and ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of the Defendants.
DONE AND
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this 24 day of June, 2004.
G. KENDALL
SHARP
FOOTNOTES:
n1 The baton travels at approximately
240 feet per second and delivers 154 foot/pounds of energy (approximately the
energy level of a professionally thrown fastball). By comparison, a 9mm handgun
delivers a bullet that is 1/3 of an inch wide, travels at 1, 200 feet per
second, and delivers approximately 400 foot/pounds of energy. (Ijames Aff., P
6.)
n2 Justice Brennan agreed with the
plurality's analysis of the standard for summary judgment in Celotex. He
dissented on the basis of the facts of the case.
n3 This case is binding precedent under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981).
n4 A supervising officer that
orders the act may be vicariously liable for the acts of his or her
subordinate. See Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir.
1995); Ford v. Byrd, 544 F.2d 194, 195 (5th Cir. 1976).
n5 A seizure occurs when government actors have, "by means of
physical force or show of authority... in some way restrained the liberty of a
citizen." Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19,
n. 16, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868
(1968)). Given that Plaintiff was surrounded by officers in his kitchen, the
Court finds there was a seizure. Although the constitutionality of this seizure
is not challenged, the Court notes in passing that an officer may seize and
detain a person for mental health evaluation with probable cause. Monday v.
Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099, 1104 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted); see also Fla
Stat. ch. 394.463 (law enforcement may use reasonable force to take person into
custody for involuntary mental health evaluation).
n6 Officer Padilla reported that
Plaintiff was holding the knife so as to cause an "indentation" in
his chest. Plaintiff argues the medical records show no wound indentation
Plaintiff's chest. (Doc. 35, Exh. F; Exh. G). Resolving disputed facts in
Plaintiff's favor for the purposes of summary judgment, the Court will assume
that the Plaintiff was holding the knife to his chest, but not inserting it
into his chest.
n7 Officer Padilla maintained
Plaintiff was turning blue from the cord wrapped around his neck. Plaintiff
testified in his deposition that he was not having trouble breathing, and
Officer Gogals and Officer Burgos reported that they did not see Plaintiff
turned blue until after he was shot. (Doc. 35, Exh. D at 4; Exh. E at 5).
Again, the Court resolves this fact in Plaintiff's favor for the purposes of
summary judgment.
n8 Cf. Wood v. City of Lakeland,
203 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2000) (no excessive force where officers fatally
shot suicidal plaintiff who moved quickly toward officers with knife); Bell v.
Irwin, 321 F.3d 637, 640 (7th Cir. 2003) (no excessive force where suicidal
plaintiff threatened to ignite propane tank).
n9 The only courts relevant to the
determination of clearly established law are the United States Supreme Court,
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Florida Supreme Court. See
Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 827 n.4 (11th
Cir. 1997) (en banc). Law from other Circuit Courts of Appeal, to which
Plaintiff frequently cites, is irrelevant for the purposes of determining
whether the law is clearly established, and the Court does not address such
cases in this discussion.
n10 Plaintiff correctly distinguishes
McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, in which the Eleventh Circuit held that a
warning was not required before using deadly force because the police had
probable cause to believe the suspect had committed a violent felony and still
posed a further threat of violence. 333 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003). Yet
Plaintiff fails to set forth any case law stating a warning is needed in
circumstances materially similar to those in the instant case.
n11 Plaintiff loosely paraphrases
Garner, which states: " [a] police officer may not seize an unarmed,
nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead ... If the suspect threatens the
officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has
committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious
physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if,
where feasible, some warning has been given." Garner, 471 U.S. at 11-12.
n12 While not controlling in a
constitutional inquiry, as an example, Florida defines deadly force as
"force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm ... [it] does
not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or
correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties
which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the
term "less-lethal munition" means a projectile that is designed to
stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person
without penetrating the person's body." Fla. Stat. ch. 776.06 (2003).
n13 Department policy provides
that "Targeting the head or neck with the baton or Sage SL6 projectiles is
acceptable in deadly force situations only." (Pigman Aff., Exh. A,
"Attachment B".) The policy also provides that a crisis negotiation
team shall be activated when, among other circumstances, a contained person has
threatened to take his own life, has the apparent ability to do so, and refuses
to surrender. (Pigman Aff., Exh. B at 2.) The Court is not aware, however, of
any precedent imposing a constitutional requirement to deploy a crisis
negotiation team or like measures.
n14 The City's use of force policy
provides that "Targeting the head or neck with the baton or Sage SL6
projectiles is acceptable in deadly force situations only." (Pigman Aff.,
Exh. A, "Attachment B".) "Deadly force" is defined as
"any action by a subject or a member that is likely to cause death or
great bodily harm." (Id. at "OP-39B, Use of Force".)
n15 Although the parties brief
this as an "inadequate training" claim employing the "deliberate
indifference" standard, the Court finds it is more properly evaluated as a
municipal custom or policy. Canton and its progeny address failures to train,
and use the deliberate indifference test because in such cases no official or
unofficial training policy would exist. Although the official use of force
policy in this case appears constitutional on its face, there may still be a
custom or unofficial policy of unlawful training.
n16 The Court is mindful that
Plaintiff has alleged that the City used an unconstitutional training policy.
The Court's holding does not prevent Plaintiff from challenging the policy
itself under section 1983.