Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12331
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-01139-GKS-KRS
THOMAS MCCRODEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COUNTY OF VOLUSIA,
JOEL V. BRESSETT,
DENNIS D. PAINTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 12, 2018)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 2 of 7
Thomas McCroden appeals the district court’s granting of judgment as a
matter of law in favor of Joel V. Bressett and Dennis D. Painter, the Officers, on
the basis of qualified immunity under federal law and individual statutory
immunity under section 768.28(9) of the Florida Statutes. This case involves the
Officers’ use of an “arm-bar takedown” maneuver on McCroden, resulting in the
dislocation and fracture of his left hip. McCroden argues on appeal that there was
a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find in his favor, and
that the district court misapplied the law by basing its decision entirely on the
Officers’ compliance with internal policy. After careful review of the parties’
briefs and the record, we affirm.
I.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment as a
matter of law and review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party. See Montgomery v. Noga,
168 F.3d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999).
Under Rule 50, a court should grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law if
“the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1).
“We review de novo a district court’s ruling granting or denying qualified
immunity, resolving all issues of material fact in favor of the non-moving party.”
Bryant v. Jones,
575 F.3d 1281, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009). To be eligible for qualified
2
Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 3 of 7
immunity, the official must establish that he was performing a “discretionary
function” at the time the alleged violation of federal law occurred.
Id. at 1295.
McCroden does not dispute that the Officers acted in a discretionary capacity.
The burden then shifts to McCroden to show “that the official is not entitled
to qualified immunity.”
Id. To do so, he must show that the Officers violated a
constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established . . . in light of the
specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition[,]” at the time of the
alleged violation. Saucier v. Katz,
533 U.S. 194, 201,
121 S. Ct. 2151, 2156
(2001). We have recognized three ways in which a plaintiff can demonstrate that
the asserted right was clearly established: (1) showing that a materially similar case
has already been decided; (2) pointing “to a broader, clearly established principle”
that applies with “obvious clarity” to the factual situation; and (3) arguing that the
conduct at issue so obviously violated the Constitution that prior case law is
unnecessary. Loftus v. Clark–Moore,
690 F.3d 1200, 1204–05 (11th Cir. 2012).
McCroden alleges that the Officers used excessive force against him in
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. In deciding whether force
deliberately used against a pretrial detainee is constitutionally excessive, “a pretrial
detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him
was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. ___,
135 S. Ct.
2466, 2473 (2015). Kingsley abrogated the standard we previously used, which
3
Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 4 of 7
required the plaintiff to show that the defendant applied the force “maliciously or
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,” see Bozeman v. Orum,
422 F.3d
1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2005). 1
“[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case.”
Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In making this inquiry, our considerations include:
the relationship between the need for the use of force and
the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff's
injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to
limit the amount of force; the severity of the security
problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the
officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.
Id. We “make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on
the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of
hindsight.”
Id. McCroden can prevail by showing “that the challenged
governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective
or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.”
Id. at 2473–74.
II.
McCroden argues that our case law clearly established a broader principle of
law that applies with obvious clarity in this case—that gratuitous use of force
1
On remand in Kingsley, the Seventh Circuit correctly noted that “before and after the Supreme
Court's decision in [Kingsley], the standards for the amount of force that can be permissibly
employed remain the same.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson,
801 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2015) (per
curiam). “[T]he law clearly established that the amount of force had to be reasonable . . . .”
Id.
at 833.
4
Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 5 of 7
against an individual who is not resisting is excessive. A principle applies with
obvious clarity if “every objectively reasonable government official facing the
circumstances would know that the official's conduct did violate federal law when
the official acted.” Vinyard v. Wilson,
311 F.3d 1340, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002).
McCroden must show that the Officers’ conduct “was so far beyond the hazy
border between excessive and acceptable force” that they had to know they were
violating the Constitution. Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla.,
208 F.3d 919,
926 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, while it may be true that this principle is clearly
established, it does not apply with obvious clarity in this case.
McCroden asserts that he was a compliant inmate that posed no immediate
threat to anyone’s safety, and there was no need for the Officers to use force
“because he calmly complied with the majority, if not all, the Officers’ directives.”
Although we review the evidence in the light most favorable to McCroden (the
non-moving party), we do not accept his version of the facts when obviously
contradicted by the record. See Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 380,
127 S. Ct.
1769, 1776 (2007). Here, we have a video of the entire event, and we view the
facts in the light depicted by the video. Id.; see also Morton v. Kirkwood,
707 F.3d
1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Thus, where an accurate video recording completely
and clearly contradicts a party’s testimony, that testimony becomes incredible.”).
5
Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 6 of 7
Although McCroden describes himself as a compliant inmate who did not
resist, the video shows otherwise. McCroden testified that at some point while
being examined by the medic because of cuts on several parts of his body, he had
an “emotional meltdown.” 2 He became “pissed off” and began cursing at the
medic. 3 He also “leaned in” toward the medic, who was within striking distance.
Because of McCroden’s aggressive behavior, the Officers became concerned for
the medic’s safety. The Officers attempted to use an escort hold to transport
McCroden to a holding cell to calm down. But the video shows McCroden
resisting the escort hold, raising his arms and the Officers’ arms above their heads.
The Officers then take McCroden to the ground using an “arm-bar takedown.”
The entire event—from McCroden’s initial aggressive behavior to the Officers’
use of the takedown—lasted about six seconds.
Further, as the district court pointed out when it granted judgment as a
matter of law, the Officers acted consistent with Volusia County’s policies and
procedures. See Bell v. Wolfish,
441 U.S. 520, 547,
99 S. Ct. 1861, 1878 (1979)
(stating that courts should defer to the policies and practices that in the judgment of
jail officials are needed to maintain order and institutional security). Volusia
County’s use of force policy authorizes the use of force in self-defense, for the
2
McCroden testified that he is bipolar. He admitted that he would be fine one minute, then
“snap” and become verbally or physically aggressive the next minute.
3
Even before force was used, this disturbance was significant enough to cause an officer in a
room down the hall to stop what she was doing and run to assist the Officers.
6
Case: 17-12331 Date Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 7 of 7
protection of others, “to overcome physical resistance to lawful orders,” and to
“control behavior that is aggressive, threatening, or otherwise non-compliant.”
The Officers were taught to use the takedown when resistance is encountered
during an escort hold. They also were not aware of any occasion where a
takedown maneuver had ever resulted in a broken bone. The County describes the
risk of injury of the takedown maneuver as “slight.” Indeed, McCroden’s own
expert testified that the County’s use of force policy and training materials were
“very good” and “quite thorough.”
McCroden cannot show that every reasonable officer facing these
circumstances would conclude that the force used was plainly unlawful. The
Officers’ use of force was rationally related to a legitimate governmental
objective—ensuring the medic’s safety as well as their own. While the extent of
injury is relevant to the excessive-force analysis, acceptable levels of force may
nonetheless cause injury. See Cockrell v. Sparks,
510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.
2007) (per curiam) (open-handed shove of boisterous inmate was reasonable even
though the inmate suffered “relatively extensive” injuries).
Thus, because no materially similar case declares the Officers’ use of force
unconstitutional, and the broad principles of law on which McCroden relies do not
apply with obvious clarity to the situation facing the Officers, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
7
