Fils v. City of Aventura
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15588
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Fils and Maurice Maurice attend a party at Broadway Billiards in Aventura, Florida on Aug 23, 2003.
- Maurice escorts a distraught partygoer to officers Williams and a non-defendant; a confrontation ensues.
- Officers tase Maurice twice; Bergert allegedly grinds a contact taser into Maurice's neck while Maurice is on the ground.
- Fils, nearby, yells at the officers; Burns allegedly tackles Fils after she steps toward Bergert's back.
- Maurice is charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; Fils is charged with several offenses but acquitted.
- Plaintiffs file § 1983 claims for excessive force and state-law claims; defendants move for summary judgment, which the district court denies on qualified-immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maurice's excessive-force claim against Bergert and Williams | Maurice was non-violent/non-resisting; taser used unreasonably. | Use of taser within reasonable force given crowd and threats; qualified immunity clips liability. | Maurice's claim survives qualified immunity; excessive force denied. |
| Fils's excessive-force claim against Bergert and Burns | Burns’s tackle and Bergert's conduct were excessive and unjustified. | Burns/Bergert acted reasonably under the circumstances; Burns entitled to immunity for his actions. | Majority reverses for Burns; Bergert's liability foreclosed on Fils claim due to theory abandonment; Burns entitled to immunity. |
| Was the law clearly established such that Bergert/Williams were not entitled to qualified immunity for Maurice? | Law clearly established that taser use on non-violent arrestees was unconstitutional. | The law was not clearly established given limited precedent on tasers at the time. | Yes, law clearly established; Bergert and Williams denied qualified immunity for Maurice. |
| District court's handling of late evidence and local-rule compliance | Court properly considered delayed submissions under flexibility in discretion. | Late filings violated local rules; should not be considered. | Court did not abuse discretion in considering late submissions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness of force balancing Graham factors)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
- Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000) (excessive force against non-violent arrestee; dog attack context)
- Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2002) (pepper spray excessive force; non-violent arrestee)
- Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (excessive force against handcuffed non-violent suspect)
- Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004) (tasers as preferred option when resisting)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law; objective reasonableness)
- Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2008) (obvious-clarity exception to established-law requirement)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness factors for force in arrest)