Maurice A. Johnson v. Gabriel Ortiz
20-13547
| 11th Cir. | May 2, 2022Background
- Maurice Johnson (pro se) stabbed Kijana Graham in an altercation, dropped the knife, and began tending to her wound.
- Officer Gabriel Ortiz arrived after hearing a disturbance, saw Johnson leaning over the bleeding victim, and shot Johnson three times (two chest hits) after Johnson raised empty hands; Ortiz gave no verbal warning.
- District court refused to consider Johnson’s response to summary judgment because his unsworn declaration did not use the precise wording of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and granted summary judgment for Ortiz on qualified-immunity grounds.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the court should have considered his affidavit, allowed him to amend or dismiss without prejudice to refile, and that he lacked adequate notice about summary-judgment response requirements.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that any error in excluding the affidavit was harmless because Ortiz is entitled to qualified immunity; amendment would be futile; and the district court had given adequate Rule 56 notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by excluding Johnson’s unsworn affidavit for noncompliance with § 1746 | Johnson: his certificate substantially complied and the response should be considered | Ortiz: failure to follow § 1746 justified exclusion | Even if exclusion was error, it was harmless because Ortiz is entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether court should have granted leave to amend or dismissed without prejudice | Johnson: should be allowed to amend or refile | Ortiz: amendment would be futile given qualified immunity | Denial of leave proper because amendment would be futile |
| Whether Ortiz violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right (excessive force) | Johnson: shooting was unlawful—hands raised, unarmed | Ortiz: force was within discretionary authority and qualified immunity applies | No clearly established law prohibits Ortiz’s conduct; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether district court failed to give adequate Rule 56 notice about affidavits and consequences | Johnson: lacked sufficient notice of need for sworn affidavits and consequences | Ortiz: district court’s order specifically explained Rule 56 obligations and consequences | Notice was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112 (affirmance may rest on any adequate ground)
- Lewis v. City of W. Palm Beach, 561 F.3d 1288 (standards for clearly established rights)
- Mikko v. City of Atlanta, 857 F.3d 1136 (qualified immunity two-step)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (liberal leave to amend; futility exception)
- Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123 (pro se amendment not required if futile)
- Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (notice requirements re summary judgment procedures)
- Massey v. Congress Life Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 1414 (procedural notice in summary judgment context)