Ruben Sebastian v. Javier Ortiz
918 F.3d 1301
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- On July 7, 2015, Ruben Sebastian was stopped for speeding in Miami; he refused officers’ requests to search his vehicle. Backup officer Lt. Javier Ortiz arrived and, after Sebastian again refused consent, officers removed and handcuffed him.
- Sebastian alleges the metal handcuffs were tightened intentionally to cause pain; after complaining, officers replaced them with flex-cuffs that were also over-tightened.
- Sebastian was held handcuffed behind his back for more than five hours at the station; he later alleged permanent nerve damage and loss of sensation in his hands and wrists.
- Criminal charges (including resisting without violence and reckless display of a firearm) were later dropped; Sebastian pleaded guilty only to a noncriminal speeding violation.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment) and supervisory failure to intervene; the district court denied Ortiz’s qualified immunity motion, and Ortiz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged handcuffing and five-hour restraint amounted to a Fourth Amendment excessive force violation | Sebastian: intentionally over-tightened cuffs caused serious, permanent injuries while he was nonresisting, so force was excessive | Ortiz: handcuffing was de minimis/ordinary arrest procedure; prior cases grant immunity where injuries were minor or unforeseeable | Court: Accepting complaint, injuries were serious and gratuitous given minor offense and lack of resistance; constitutional violation plausibly pleaded |
| Whether the right violated was "clearly established" so qualified immunity is unavailable | Sebastian: Eleventh Circuit precedent shows gratuitous force on nonresisting suspects is clearly prohibited; comparable cases give fair warning | Ortiz: no controlling precedent exactly on point; de minimis-handcuff cases imply immunity absent officer knowledge of vulnerability | Court: Existing precedent (Graham line, Smith, Lee, Hadley, Hope) provided fair warning; exceptional facts here cross hazy border—no immunity |
| Whether supervisory liability (failure to intervene) attaches to Ortiz | Sebastian: Ortiz either applied cuffs or failed to stop another officer; liability for failure to intervene if in position to act | Ortiz: supervisory immunity argued only in relation to qualified immunity on underlying claim | Court: Because excessive force claim survives and parties do not dispute Ortiz’s opportunity to intervene, failure-to-intervene claim also not entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether alleged confinement inside hot, partially ventilated car was excessive force | Sebastian: confinement and closed windows aggravated injury and pain | Ortiz: temporary confinement in the car without lasting injury is not excessive | Court: District court correctly found the car confinement not excessive; the handcuffing/restraint was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir.) (gratuitous force against a compliant arrestee can defeat qualified immunity)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir.) (severe unnecessary force after arrest vitiates immunity)
- Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (gratuitous force on nonresisting suspect may be excessive)
- Gold v. City of Miami, 121 F.3d 1442 (11th Cir.) (de minimis handcuffing-related injury can support immunity)
- Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.) (painful handcuffing with minimal injuries may be de minimis)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (officials can be on notice that conduct is unconstitutional even in novel factual circumstances)