Joseph Todd Eric BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEWISTON and Luis Perez, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-5503.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 13, 1988.
Defendants cite United States v. Halper,5 664 F.Supp. 852 (S.D.N.Y.1987), to argue that to impose the total forfeitures requested by the government would be to unconstitutionally punish defendants twice for the same offense. In Halper, although the district court recognized imposition of a forfeiture for each false claim submitted is mandatory under the Act, it refused to impose $130,000 in forfeitures where the government‘s actual loss was $585. Id. at 854. The district court held that in that particular case, such a disproportionate award would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense where the defendant already had been sentenced to two years in prison and a $5,000 penalty for the same fraudulent acts. Id. at 855.
In the case at bar, the Double Jeopardy Clause would not be implicated even if the district court were to find all fifty-two invoices fraudulent. Only where a defendant is subjected to successive actions, both authorizing punishment the purpose of which is to vindicate public justice, is the defendant placed in “jeopardy” within the constitutional construction. See Hess, 317 U.S. at 548-49, 63 S.Ct. at 386-87, 87 L.Ed. 443, citing Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397-98, 58 S.Ct. 630, 632, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938). It is well settled that for one act a person may be held both criminally and civilly liable. Hess, 317 U.S. at 549, 63 S.Ct. at 386-87. “A man may be compelled to make reparations in damages to the injured party, and be liable also to punishment for a breach of the public peace, in consequence of the same act; and may be said, in common parlance, to be twice punished for the same offense.” Hess, 317 U.S. at 549, 63 S.Ct. at 387, quoting Moore v. Illinois, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 13, 19-20, 14 L.Ed. 306, 308-09 (1852). The Act is a remedial statute. Its purpose is not to “vindicate public justice” but to protect the government against financial loss. See Hess, 317 U.S. at 549, 63 S.Ct. at 387; S.Rep. No. 615, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. at 2. Forfeitures and double damages recompense the government for costs of the investigation and litigation as well as the actual monetary damage incurred because of the defendant‘s fraud. Even if the district court awards $104,000 in forfeitures along with the doubled damages of $1,267,800, it “will do [no] more than afford the government indemnity for the injuries done it.” Hess, 317 U.S. at 549, 63 S.Ct. at 387, citing Helvering, 303 U.S. at 401, 58 S.Ct. at 634.
III. CONCLUSION
We REMAND the issue of statutory forfeitures back to the district court for a finding as to how many invoices were fraudulent with an order awarding any additional forfeitures in accordance with this opinion. We AFFIRM the remaining findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Ralph B. Paxton, Paxton, Crow, Bragg & Austin, P.A., Michele I. Nelson, West Palm Beach, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and MARKEY*, Chief Circuit Judge.
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:
This appeal challenges the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, the City of Clewiston, Florida [“City” or “City of Clewiston“].1 Plaintiff-appellant Joseph Todd Eric Brown sued the City of Clewiston after one of its police officers shot Brown as he attempted to avoid arrest. Brown contends that City police authorized the use of deadly force in violation of his constitutional rights,
On June 18, 1979, Officer Luis Perez, an employee of the City, received information that led him to watch an unoccupied apartment. He saw Brown break a window and crawl into the apartment to steal a stereo and other property. Thereafter, Brown left the apartment and returned to a car that was parked nearby. When Officer Perez approached and attempted to arrest Brown, Brown fled; Officer Perez shot Brown in the leg to prevent his escape.2 Apparently, Brown was unarmed and presented no threat of death or bodily harm to Officer Perez or others. See generally Brown v. City of Clewiston, 644 F.Supp. 1407, 1409-10 (S.D.Fla.1986) (describing the undisputed facts surrounding the shooting incident). Also, “Perez knew who the plaintiff [Brown] was, knew that he was a juvenile and knew his address.” Id. at 1410.
At the time of the shooting incident, a Florida statute provided “justification” for a police officer to use “any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest or when necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped or when necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice.”
By 1978, the City had adopted its own regulations on the use of deadly force. Then-Chief of Police Wilbur Miller had developed a police manual, which in Section 3.43 provided as follows:
Firearms and Weapons:
Authorized Uses: A member shall not draw or display his firearm except for a legal use or official inspection. A Member should never draw his firearm unless he plans to and is ready to use it. When it is necessary to use a firearm, it shall be fired for effect, not to wound or warn. A member may discharge his firearm in connection with the performance of his official police duty, for the following reasons or circumstances.
....
c. To defend himself from death or serious injury.
d. To defend another person, unlawfully attacked, from death or serious injury when other means have failed.
e. To apprehend—when all other means have failed—a fleeing felon whom the officer reasonably believes has (1) committed a violent crime to the person of another or (2) a crime
against property that clearly demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for human life.
(emphasis in original). The last paragraph of this section stated that a police officer “shall exert no more force than is reasonably necessary to apprehend the fleeing felon, and shall use deadly force only as a last resort and only in those instances described under ‘Authorized Use’ above.” (emphasis in original).
Police department policy required that each officer sign a copy of the department‘s rules, thereby acknowledging that “he had received the manual and agreed to read it and abide by the rules of the manual.” Deposition of Chief Wilbur Miller, at 10. Chief Miller repeatedly instructed his officers to read and to comply with the manual. Id. at 8, 10, 16, 23, & 36-37. If an officer violated any regulations, the department would check into the matter and, if warranted, suspend or terminate the officer. Id. at 35-36.
After the shooting incident in 1979, Brown filed suit against the City. Brown alleged that the City‘s “policies and procedures” on the use of deadly force deprived him of his constitutional rights,
OUR STANDARD OF REVIEW
Preliminarily, we discuss the appropriate standard of review. ”
The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff‘s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. The judge‘s inquiry, therefore, unavoidably asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict—“whether there is [evidence] upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.”
Id. at 2512 (emphasis added) (quoting Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448, 20 L.Ed. 867 (1872)).
NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL “POLICY” FOR 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
Brown seeks to impose municipal liability on the City of Clewiston for its allegedly unconstitutional “policies and procedures” regarding the use of deadly force. He contends that material fact disputes preclude the grant of summary judgment for the City. After briefly discussing the nature of the constitutional “injury” alleged in this case, we focus on the chief issue before us today—namely, whether Brown‘s “injury” resulted from an official policy, “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage” of the City. See
Brown argues that Officer Perez improperly used deadly force when he shot
We assume arguendo that Officer Perez shot Brown under circumstances that violated the Garner Court‘s Fourth Amendment standard on the use of deadly force. It is nonetheless axiomatic that “a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under
Recently, the Supreme Court in Pembaur reaffirmed that “tortious conduct, to be the basis for municipal liability under
Brown argues that a material fact dispute exists regarding which “policy” the City of Clewiston “officially sanctioned or ordered” at the time of the shooting in 1979. Under the Florida statute, a police officer could use “any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another ... or when necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice.”
Brown nonetheless argues that “Chief Miller may have promulgated a ‘city procedure manual’ and then chose, as the official policymaker of the City of Clewiston, to ignore that policy manual and apply [Florida‘s] Fleeing Felon Statute in situations as they arose with persons such as Plaintiff, Brown.” Reply Brief of Appellant, Brown v. City of Clewiston, No. 87-5503, at 5. To try to support this theory, Brown has extracted selective statements from the depositions of Chief Miller, Officer Perez, and several expert witnesses, all of whom testified about the City‘s police manual and the state statute,
None of these deposition statements, viewed in context, supports Brown‘s claim. In his deposition, Chief Miller stated that he instructed his police officers to follow state statutes and the police manual. Chief Miller recalled that he “wanted” his police officers “to conform with our manual, but above all else to stay within the state statute“, Deposition of Chief Wilbur Miller, at 39; he opined that “[a]s far as I‘m concerned, Luis Perez abided by the statute at the time, which would supersede my manual....” Id. at 92-93.
These statements raise no factual dispute about the City‘s policy on deadly force. That the Chief wanted his officers “above all else” to violate no state law is not inconsistent with his requirement that they follow the more restrictive City policy.8 Violation of city policy is bad, but violation of state law—especially in the light of criminal and civil penalties—is worse. In addition, an officer could easily comply with both state law and the city policy manual—although they were not the same—simply by complying with the more restrictive of the two. Similarly, the Chief‘s assertion that state law justified the shooting of Brown is not inconsistent with the City‘s policy having been disobeyed. Finally, Chief Miller‘s statement that state law would supersede his policy manual does not mean that the manual did not contain the City‘s official policy on the use of deadly force. Actually, Chief Miller was correct to say that the state statute then in effect “superseded” his policy manual in terms of the relevant standard for determining Officer Perez‘s criminal and civil liability under Florida law. See Chastain v. Civil Service Board of Orlando, 327 So.2d 230,
The deposition statements of Officer Perez9 and the two expert witnesses10 likewise provide no indication that a genuine issue of material fact exists to preclude summary judgment for the City. We agree with the district court that, “[t]o the extent that any fact is in dispute, ... that fact (e.g., the existence of an unconstitutional policy) is an essential element of plaintiff‘s claim on which there has been a complete failure of proof after three (3) years of discovery.” Brown, 644 F.Supp. at 1411-12 (emphasis added).11
To the extent that Brown has presented any evidence to establish that what appears to be the City policy is, in fact, not the policy, that evidence is “merely colorable“, amounting to at most a “scintilla.” No witness testified that the City policy was not, in fact, used. All testimony was consistent with the apparent policy (the police manual) being the true policy.12 The Record reveals no “significantly probative” evidence that the City‘s “authorized decisionmakers” officially sanctioned the use
NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT UNDER STATE LAW
Brown also appeals the grant of summary judgment as it pertains to his pendent state law claims against the City of Clewiston. He argues, in effect, that the district court used an improper standard to determine the City‘s liability under negligence and assault and battery theories.
In granting summary judgment against Brown‘s state law claims, the district court stated that “[t]he standard of care owed by the City to the plaintiff must be determined with reference to
Brown contends that the Supreme Court‘s decision in Garner somehow “amended” Florida‘s standard on the use of deadly force. We disagree. Garner, which arose from a
Applying the pertinent state tort law standard that prevailed at the time of Brown‘s shooting, we perceive no basis in the Record to support Brown‘s negligence and assault and battery claims. As we have already discussed, the City‘s official policy authorized the use of deadly force only as a “last resort“, under life-threatening circumstances. Officer Perez‘s actions in shooting Brown apparently violated the City‘s policy. See Brown, 644 F.Supp. at 1416. Even under a respondeat superior theory,18 there is no basis to support Brown‘s tort law action against the City.19
In sum, Brown has failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists to preclude the grant of summary judgment in the City‘s favor. Brown must show that some probative evidence supports his state tort law claims. In light of Florida‘s common-law standard on the use of deadly force, Brown has not met this burden.
As Justice (now Chief Justice) Rehnquist recently stressed, “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to ‘secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.‘” Celotex Corp., 106 S.Ct. at 2555 (plurality opinion); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (“purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.‘“). Given the circumstances of this case—namely, a City police manual that narrowly circumscribed the use of deadly force, a police chief who required that his officers follow the manual (and that they comply with “state law“), and the single-incident nature of this shooting, we conclude that the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find that the City had a policy authorizing the use of deadly force when the federal constitution would prohibit such force. No basis exists for liability under Florida tort laws. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court.
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority holds that Brown has failed to demonstrate the existence of a material fact dispute regarding which policy the city of Clewiston followed at the time of the shooting in 1979. Because, in my view, the majority has affirmed the district court‘s resolution of factual disputes, I dissent.
As noted in the district court‘s opinion, the plaintiff and the city of Clewiston have stipulated to the following facts:
On June 18, 1979, Officer LUIS PEREZ was a police officer employed by the defendant CITY. PEREZ was within the vicinity of Concordia Avenue in the City of Clewiston and was observing an apartment located at 834 Concordia Avenue. PEREZ was acting within the course and scope of his employment at that time and during the course of subsequent events.
As PEREZ watched, plaintiff BROWN went to the back of the apartment at 834 Concordia Avenue, broke the glass in a
Officer PEREZ approached the parked vehicle, announced that he was a police officer and told BROWN that he was under arrest. At the time, PEREZ knew who the plaintiff was, knew that he was a juvenile and knew his address. BROWN knew PEREZ was a police officer and that he (PEREZ) was attempting to place the plaintiff under arrest.
After PEREZ told the plaintiff that he was under arrest, BROWN attempted to escape by fleeing. Officer PEREZ discharged his firearm, hitting the plaintiff in the leg, in order to prevent his (BROWN‘S) escape....
The following facts, although not stipulated to, are uncontroverted: BROWN committed a felony, to wit: Burglary. BROWN was unarmed at the time he was shot and was not a threat to PEREZ or any other person. Officer PEREZ was not in fear of death or bodily harm at the time he shot BROWN.
Brown v. City of Clewiston, 644 F.Supp. 1407, 1409-10 (S.D.Fla.1986).
This appeal comes to us in much the same posture as the Supreme Court‘s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). In Garner, the father of a 15-year-old burglary suspect who was slain by a police officer, filed suit against the officer, the Memphis Police Department, the city of Memphis, and other public officials, alleging that the shooting violated the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. See Garner, 471 U.S. at 5, 105 S.Ct. at 1698, 85 L.Ed.2d at 67. Because the facts of Garner are so similar to those in this case, a brief review of Garner is warranted.
On October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a late-night call that a burglary was in progress at a private residence. As Officer Hymon approached the house, he observed the suspect, Eugene Garner, run away from the house and across the backyard. With the aid of a flashlight, Officer Hymon was able to see Garner‘s hands and face, and though not certain, “was ‘reasonably sure’ and ‘figured’ that Garner was unarmed.” Garner, 471 U.S. at 3, 105 S.Ct. at 1697, 85 L.Ed.2d at 5. After Garner refused to obey Officer Hymon‘s command that he halt, Hymon fired his revolver, fatally wounding Garner. When asked at trial why he fired his revolver, Hymon‘s only justification was that “there [wa]s no way that I could have caught him.” Garner, 471 U.S. at 4 n. 3, 105 S.Ct. at 1697 n. 3, 85 L.Ed.2d at 5 n. 3.1
In using deadly force to prevent Garner‘s escape, Officer Hymon was acting pursuant to the authority of a Tennessee statute which provided that “[i]f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.”
Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for all defendants, but was subsequently reversed by the court of appeals. Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir.1983). On certiorari, the Supreme Court, agreeing with the Sixth Circuit that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional as applied, held that deadly force may not be employed to prevent the escape of a suspected felon unless the police officer has probable cause
In holding that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional insofar as it authorized the use of deadly forced against unarmed, nondangerous suspects, the Court underscored the overwhelming trend among the states to abandon the common law rule, which allowed the use of whatever force necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. Garner, 471 U.S. at 25-26, 105 S.Ct. at 1708-09, 85 L.Ed.2d at 18-19. Among those statutes identified by the Court as an embodiment of the common law rule was
In contrast to
(1) to defend himself from serious injury;
(2) to defend others from death or serious injury when other means have failed; and (3) to apprehend a fleeing felon when all other means have failed and where the officer reasonably believes that the felon has committed a violent crime toward a person or a crime against property demonstrating a wanton and reckless disregard for human life.
For purposes of determining whether Brown has stated a claim against the city, I agree with the majority that Brown must allege and submit proof that the city of Clewiston promulgated an unconstitutional policy or custom, which caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986); Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
In refuting Brown‘s claim that a material fact dispute exists regarding which policy the city of Clewiston applied at the time of his shooting, the majority concludes that the official policy of the city was contained in Chief Wilbur Miller‘s police manual. This conclusion is reached because each police officer was required to sign a copy of the manual and because Miller verbally admonished his officers, “Don‘t take your
The majority reasons that Brown attempts to create a material fact dispute regarding the city‘s official policy by “extract[ing] selective statements from the depositions of Chief Miller [and] Officer Perez....” Ante at 1539. To the extent that Brown‘s argument is predicated on selective portions of the deposition testimony, the majority‘s analysis is similarly flawed. For instance, conspicuously absent from the majority‘s opinion is Chief Miller‘s testimony that he instructed his officers to follow state law as well as the department‘s manual:
Q. [Counsel for Defendants] Did you keep a tight rein on your officers as far as discharging firearms?
A. [Chief Miller] Well, we had the policies, and I tell them don‘t be playing cowboys out there, you know. Don‘t take your gun out unless you need it; don‘t fire it unless it‘s absolutely necessary.
Q. And did you tell them to follow the policies in the manual?
A. Follow the policies of the manual AND the STATE STATUTES. [Emphasis added.]
The problem with this response is that the policies embodied in the department‘s manual and
In contrast, Florida‘s fleeing felon statute does not differentiate between felonies against property and felonies against the person. Therefore, given Chief Miller‘s testimony that he admonished his officers “to follow the policies of the manual and the state statutes,” one could certainly argue that part of the department‘s “policy” was that police officers were authorized to use deadly force when attempting to apprehend suspected felons who, as in this case, had committed crimes against property.
This interpretation seems even more plausible given Chief Miller‘s testimony that he wanted his officers “to conform with their manual but above all else to stay within the state statute.” The majority reasons that this testimony raises no factual issue regarding the city‘s official policy on the use of deadly force because Chief Miller‘s desire that his officers not violate state law “is not inconsistent with his desire that they adhere to the more restrictive city policy.” Ante at 1539.
As mentioned previously, however, Florida‘s fleeing felon statute is much broader regarding the use of deadly force than the department‘s manual. Chief Miller‘s instructions that his officers “above all else stay within the state statute” while at the same time “conform with their manual” is an inherent contradiction. As this case demonstrates, although Officer Perez was authorized to shoot Brown under
The deposition testimony of Officer Perez likewise raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the city‘s official policy regarding the use of deadly force was embodied in
Q. [Counsel for Plaintiff] Had you ever received any training in the use of deadly force in making an arrest in terms of any state policies or state laws or any county policies or not county—any city like Clewiston, policies?
A. [Officer Perez] CITY OF CLEWISTON, NO, SIR.
Q. To your knowledge was there any set standard or any lists of standards by
the Clewiston Police Department pertaining to when it used deadly force in making an arrest? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were they in any way different from those policies that were used by the state or promulgated from the state of law enforcement?
A. NO, SIR, I DON‘T THINK SO.
Q. In your training courses in Fort Myers, did you receive any training when you used a [sic] deadly force in making an arrest?
A. Verbally they would explain to us, yes, sir.
Q. When you were using deadly force, I assume, in the instance of Todd Brown, what was your reason or justification for using deadly force?
A. Fleeing felon.
Q. And was it your understanding that use of deadly force was permitted by the state law and City of Clewiston Police Department‘s instructions or practice, for instance, in fleeing felons?
MR. PETERSON: Objection to the form.
THE WITNESS: Back there then, that‘s a State Statute, fleeing felon.
BY MR. NUGENT:
Q. I assume that the State Statute was followed by the Clewiston Police Department?
A. YES, SIR. [Emphasis added.]
Obviously troubled by the equivocal nature of his responses, the majority discounts Officer Perez‘s testimony by reasoning that he “did not say that he was instructed to disregard the Chief‘s manual and to follow some other ‘policy.‘” Ante at 1540 n. 9. “In any event,” the majority reasons, “Chief Miller, and not Officer Perez, was responsible for implementing the city‘s policy on the use of deadly force.” Ante at 1540 n. 9. The majority‘s reasoning is unpersuasive in at least two respects.
First, it does not save the day for the majority that Officer Perez did not testify that he was instructed to disregard the department‘s manual and follow some other policy. In Officer Perez‘s view, the standards for using deadly force contained in the department‘s manual were identical to the standards contained in
Second, the majority‘s rationale that Officer Perez‘s testimony is irrelevant because Chief Miller was responsible for implementing the city‘s policy on the use of deadly force, overlooks the fact that the term “policy,” as it pertains to municipal liability, is not only a function of rulemaking, but also a function of implementation of those rules. Surely, the city could not escape liability by merely promulgating rules which it never intended to enforce, or of which its employees were never made aware. Thus, while I agree that Officer Perez‘s testimony is not dispositive, I disagree with the majority‘s rejection of his testimony as bearing no relevance on the factual dispute regarding the city‘s policy on the use of deadly force.
Brown has demonstrated the existence of a material factual dispute regarding the city‘s official policy on the use of deadly force. Factual disputes of this nature are precisely the types of disputes which district courts should refrain from resolving on motions for summary judgment.