Roberto Valderrama v. Officer Carl Rousseau
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- At ~6:30 a.m. on Jan. 24, 2006, Detective Carl Rousseau stopped a car driven by Ricardo Garcia; passenger Roberto Valderrama was shot in the groin by Rousseau ~20 seconds after Rousseau approached the vehicle.
- Sergeant Yasmina Smith arrived, saw Valderrama bleeding, told him to sit (did not immediately call an ambulance), and later reported the injury to police dispatch as a "laceration"; an ambulance arrived ~11 minutes after that call.
- Sergeant Braulio Gonzalez arrived shortly after the shooting; he saw Valderrama bleeding and called a supervisor before an ambulance request was placed.
- Valderrama was arrested for possession of cocaine and paraphernalia (charges later dropped) and sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, false arrest, deliberate indifference to medical need) and state-law claims; officers moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on some § 1983 claims (false arrest and deliberate indifference); on interlocutory appeal the Eleventh Circuit (majority) reversed as to false arrest but affirmed denial as to deliberate indifference for Rousseau and Smith, and granted qualified immunity to Gonzalez on the deliberate-indifference claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest / False arrest § 1983 | Valderrama: Smith didn’t see him throw crack pipe; arrest lacked probable cause | Officers: Smith saw Valderrama discard a pipe; that observation supplied probable cause (imputed to others) | Reversed district court; officers entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on the § 1983 false-arrest claim (probable cause shown) |
| Deliberate indifference to serious medical need (Fourteenth Amendment) | Valderrama: officers knew he was shot, delayed calling for care, and Smith misreported wound as a "laceration" to slow response — constitutes deliberate indifference | Officers: any delay was brief/innocent, dispatch issues caused delay, and facts don’t show intent to delay care | Affirmed in part: Rousseau and Smith not entitled to qualified immunity on deliberate-indifference claim (jury issue); Gonzalez entitled to qualified immunity on that claim |
| Whether officers’ conduct was clearly established unlawful (qualified immunity standard) | Valderrama: precedent made clear that intentional delay in care for life‑threatening injuries violates due process | Officers: precedents do not clearly establish liability for the brief delay here; factual differences matter | Court: law was clearly established that intentionally delaying treatment for life‑threatening injuries is unconstitutional; qualified immunity denied for Rousseau and Smith on that claim |
| Appellate jurisdiction over related state-law conspiracy / concert claims | Valderrama: ask review of state-law claims tied to excessive-force theory | Officers: interlocutory appeal limited to qualified-immunity issues | Dismissed in part: appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review state-law conspiracy/concert claims; exercised pendent jurisdiction only over false-arrest state claims tied to probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) (qualified-immunity framework; clearly-established-right inquiry)
- Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2005) (deliberate-indifference requires objective serious need and subjective knowledge; delays of a few minutes can be actionable for life‑threatening injuries)
- McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (delays in providing medical care can violate due process even if care is eventually given)
- Durruthy v. Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2003) (arguable probable cause doctrine for qualified immunity in § 1983 arrest claims)
- Redd v. City of Enterprise, 140 F.3d 1378 (11th Cir. 1998) (arrest without probable cause violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (subjective knowledge of risk may be inferred from obviousness of the risk)
- Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1990) (factfinder may infer deliberate indifference where officials ignore an obvious, serious condition)
- Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (officers cannot fabricate evidence to protect self‑interest; such conduct bears on constitutional claims)
- Pourmoghani‑Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2010) (short delays for apparently minor injuries may not be clearly established deliberate indifference)
- Lanier v. United States, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (clarifies how much specificity is required to show a right is clearly established)