Andres Gregory v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
16-17093
| 11th Cir. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- At ~3:30 a.m. on May 28, 2012, Officer Luis Perez stopped 16-year-old Sebastian Gregory, who was walking and carrying a metallic T‑ball bat partly visible as a bulge in his right front pocket.
- Perez ordered Gregory onto the ground; the parties dispute Gregory’s position and whether Gregory moved his hands toward the bulge immediately before Perez fired nine shots, wounding Gregory.
- Gregory had prior arrests (including for concealed weapons) and an outstanding warrant; Perez recognized him from a prior arrest where Gregory carried concealed weapons.
- Conflicting evidence: Perez testified Gregory reached for the bulge; Gregory testified he only "wobbled" a leg and never moved his hands. A later televised interview of Gregory contained ambiguous statements that the district court deemed consistent with Perez’s account.
- Procedural history: plaintiffs sued Perez and Miami‑Dade County under § 1983 and Florida tort law. The district court dismissed county claims on sovereign‑immunity grounds and granted summary judgment for Perez on several claims after reconsideration based on the TV interview. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment (§ 1983) | Gregory argues a genuine fact dispute exists whether he moved his hands toward the bat; if he did not, deadly force was unreasonable | Perez contends Gregory reached for the bulge (a weapon) and deadly force was reasonable; televised interview corroborates his account | Reversed summary judgment for Perez on excessive‑force claim: genuine dispute of material fact about whether Gregory moved his hands; case proceeds (no qualified immunity) |
| Whether Perez is entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim | Gregory: law clearly established that shooting a non‑resisting, non‑threatening suspect is unconstitutional | Perez: relied on cases involving armed, fleeing, or ambush scenarios to justify force | Court: law was clearly established that shooting a non‑fleeing, non‑threatening suspect violates the Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity not available here |
| Whether Perez is immune under Florida law (self‑defense / sovereign immunity) for state battery and IIED claims | Gregory: factual dispute about whether deadly force was necessary; therefore immunity defenses are inappropriate | Perez: invoked self‑defense statute and sovereign immunity; later argued broadcast eliminated dispute | Court: denied immunity for Perez on battery and IIED because factual disputes remain; immunity not appropriate for Perez at summary judgment |
| Whether Miami‑Dade County is immune from state claims (battery, false imprisonment, filial consortium) | Gregory: alternative pleadings could support non‑immunity; county may remain liable if officer acted within scope without wanton/bad‑faith conduct | County: allegations only support conduct so egregious it must be bad faith/wanton and willful, so sovereign immunity bars county liability | Affirmed dismissal of county claims: under the complaint’s allegations (shooting Gregory repeatedly in the back, no threat), the conduct can only be characterized as done in bad faith or with wanton and willful disregard, so sovereign immunity bars county claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use‑of‑force reasonableness standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video that blatantly contradicts testimony can discredit that testimony for summary judgment)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (shooting non‑threatening, non‑resisting suspect violates Fourth Amendment)
- Lundgren v. McDaniel, 814 F.2d 600 (jury could find officers unprovoked when no threatening move was made)
- McKinney v. DeKalb Cty., Ga., 997 F.2d 1440 (denial of summary judgment where facts could support victim merely shifting position, not threatening)
- Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (excessive‑force § 1983 analysis)
- Jean‑Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816 (distinguishing hot‑pursuit/armed‑fleeing context)
- Perez v. Suszczynski, 809 F.3d 1213 (presence of weapon alone insufficient; context and movement matter)
- McGhee v. Volusia Cty., 679 So. 2d 729 (Florida: employer not automatically immune for employee’s intentional misconduct; factfinder decides wanton/bad‑faith issue)