Lissette Hernandez v. Bob Hansell , 695 F. App'x 523 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-17124 Date Filed: 08/11/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17124
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-01351-ACC-DCI
LISSETTE HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BOB HANSELL,
in his official capacity as Sheriff of Osceola County,
GABRIEL DAVILA,
individually,
RAMY YACOUB,
individually,
JOHNNY ACEVEDO,
individually,
MICHAEL FUREY,
individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 11, 2017)
Case: 16-17124 Date Filed: 08/11/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lissette Hernandez sued police officers Gabriel Davila, Ramy Yacoub,
Johnny Acevedo, and Michael Furey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Hernandez alleged
that all four officers illegally entered and searched her home and that Davila used
excessive force against her. The district court granted summary judgment to the
officers on Hernandez’s illegal-entry-and-search claims, and a jury, after a two-day
trial, delivered a verdict in favor of Davila on Hernandez’s excessive-force claim.
This is Hernandez’s appeal.
Hernandez argues that the district court erred (1) in granting summary
judgment on her illegal-entry-and-search claims, (2) in allowing Davila to testify
about the contents of an audiotaped exchange between radio dispatchers and the
officers, and (3) in denying her request for a new trial. But after careful
consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error.
First, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on
Hernandez’s illegal-entry-and-search claims. The court granted summary
judgment after determining that officers Davila, Yacoub, Acevedo, and Furey are
entitled to qualified immunity. We agree with that determination. Even taking the
evidence in the light most favorable to Hernandez, the officers did not violate
1
Hernandez also brought state-law claims against Davila and Bob Hansell, in Hansell’s
official capacity as the Sheriff of Osceola County. Those claims are not at issue here.
2
Case: 16-17124 Date Filed: 08/11/2017 Page: 3 of 4
“clearly established” law in entering and searching Hernandez’s home. See
Whittier v. Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304, 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Second, the district court did not commit reversible error in allowing Davila
to testify about the contents of an audiotaped exchange between radio dispatchers
and the officers. Hernandez contends that the testimony was inappropriate lay
witness testimony because it was not rationally based on Davila’s perception and it
was not helpful to the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 701(a), (b). However, “[t]he
admissibility of evidence is committed to the broad discretion of the district court,”
and Hernandez has failed to make “a clear showing of abuse of discretion”
compelling reversal. See Walker v. NationsBank of Fla. N.A., 53 F.3d 1548, 1554
(11th Cir. 1995).
Finally, the district court did not err in denying Hernandez’s request for a
new trial. Hernandez argues that the district court should have granted a new trial
because (1) defense counsel, when examining a witness, referenced information
that the district court had excluded via an order in limine, (2) the district court
failed to properly instruct the jury, (3) a juror engaged in misconduct during voir
dire by failing to disclose his prior involvement in certain legal proceedings, and
(4) the district court made comments to the jury that prevented a fair and
thoughtful deliberation. After examining each of these arguments, we cannot
3
Case: 16-17124 Date Filed: 08/11/2017 Page: 4 of 4
conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying Hernandez’s
request for a new trial. See United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1225 (11th
Cir. 2015); Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Valente, 933 F.2d 921, 923 (11th Cir. 1991).
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4