Livingston Manners v. Officer Ronald Cannella, 891 F.3d 959

Background

In June 2014 at ~3:00 a.m., Officer Cannella activated lights/siren behind Livingston Manners after observing his vehicle; Manners knowingly did not stop and drove about three blocks to a well-lit gas station before stopping.
At the gas station Cannella told Manners he was under arrest; a physical struggle followed as Cannella attempted to handcuff Manners, who resisted for about three minutes.
Backup Officer Sabillon arrived and deployed a taser; multiple officers ultimately subdued and handcuffed Manners.
Manners was criminally charged (initial charges included attempted homicide, resisting with violence, battery on an officer); later tried on lesser counts and acquitted of the counts he faced at trial. He incurred legal fees.
Manners sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force and malicious prosecution) and brought a Florida false arrest claim against the City; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity and probable cause grounds.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it rejected Manners’s stop-sign theory (material dispute), found actual/arguable probable cause to arrest for fleeing/attempting to elude, held force used was not excessive, and dismissed malicious prosecution and false arrest claims because of probable cause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause to arrest for running a stop sign	Manners says he stopped; Cannella’s view was wrong so no probable cause for that offense	Cannella observed Manners run the stop sign and that belief (even if mistaken) supports probable cause	No — material factual dispute over who is believed; summary judgment on that theory inappropriate
Probable/arguable probable cause to arrest for fleeing/attempting to elude	Manners argues his brief, cautious drive to a well-lit area was necessary and did not constitute flight	Officers point to lights/siren, Manners’s knowledge he was ordered to stop, and his willful failure to stop for ~three blocks/14.4 seconds	Yes — actual and at minimum arguable probable cause existed to arrest for fleeing/eluding
Excessive force / qualified immunity	Manners contends punches and taser use were gratuitous and excessive even if arrest was lawful	Officers contend force was proportionate to active, sustained resistance and reasonable under the circumstances; qualified immunity applies absent clearly established law to the contrary	Yes — force was not constitutionally excessive given active resistance; officers entitled to qualified immunity
Malicious prosecution / state false arrest	Manners asserts prosecution and detention lacked probable cause and inflicted damages	Defendants assert probable cause for arrest (flight) defeats malicious prosecution and is a complete defense to false arrest	Yes — probable cause forecloses § 1983 malicious prosecution and Florida false arrest claim

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts may rely on video evidence when it blatantly contradicts a party’s story)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause and clearly established law must be assessed in the specific context)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (articulating standard for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide prongs of qualified immunity in either order)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force reasonableness test; consider severity, threat, and resistance)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (probable cause to arrest for minor offenses can justify custodial arrest)
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (probable cause addresses probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity framework and burden shifting)
Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (arguable probable cause standard for qualified immunity)
Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872 (11th Cir. 2003) (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)