Reginald Chatman v. Deputy Wengert
16-14882
| 11th Cir. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Chatman fled when officers attempted to handcuff him for suspected petit theft; he hid in bushes after running and cramping.
- Deputy Wengert, a BSO canine officer, and his dog Diesel searched, gave (disputed) standard canine warnings, then released Diesel after an alert near the bushes.
- Chatman and Wengert sharply dispute events after the bite: Wengert says Diesel bit for 5–10 seconds and Chatman resisted; Chatman says he immediately surrendered verbally but Diesel continued biting for 15–20 minutes.
- Photographs and medical records show multiple punctures and scratches to Chatman’s left thigh; Chatman alleges lasting nerve/muscle damage and other injuries.
- District court denied Wengert qualified immunity on summary judgment, finding a triable issue whether Wengert allowed a prolonged dog bite after surrender; Wengert appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chatman surrendered before or during the dog bite | Chatman says he surrendered immediately and verbally; bite continued after surrender | Wengert disputes surrender timing; says bite was brief and not prolonged | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; surrender timing unresolved at summary judgment |
| Whether Diesel continued biting for 15–20 minutes after surrender | Chatman alleges prolonged attack causing lasting injuries | Wengert argues photographic/medical evidence shows bite was brief; expert excluded for late disclosure | Photographic/medical evidence does not blatantly contradict Chatman’s account; triable fact remains |
| Whether the force was de minimis | Chatman contends prolonged attack causing lasting injury is more than de minimis force | Wengert argues injuries are minor so force was de minimis and not actionable | Court rejects de minimis argument given alleged prolonged bite and lasting harm; not resolved on summary judgment |
| Entitlement to qualified immunity at summary judgment | Chatman says right against prolonged dog bite after surrender was clearly established | Wengert asserts evidence disproves prolonged bite or shows de minimis force, so immunity applies | Denial of qualified immunity affirmed; questions of fact preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video that blatantly contradicts plaintiff may be credited over sworn testimony)
- Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244 (evidence can be disregarded only when blatantly contradicted or incredible)
- Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (on summary judgment, courts must construe facts and draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253 (de minimis force without more does not support Fourth Amendment excessive force claim)
- Edwards v. Shanley, 666 F.3d 1289 (allowing dog to attack for several minutes after surrender may be unreasonable)
- Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (two-minute dog attack on compliant suspect was unreasonable)
- Carter v. Butts County, 821 F.3d 1310 (standard of review for denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment)