NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 17-2890
_____________
BRYAN M. SANTINI,
Appellant
v.
COLONEL JOSEPH R. FUENTES;
TROOPER J. L. FURHMANN;
TROOPER R. H. SICKLES;
STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
JOHN DOE 1-10 (a fictitious name);
JOHN ROE SUPERVISING OFFICER (a fictitious name)
ABC CORP. 1-10 (a fictitious name)
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(No. 3-11-cv-00639)
District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti
Submitted: June 11, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, GREENBERG, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed July 12, 2018)
____________
OPINION*
____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Bryan Santini appeals the District Court grant of summary judgment in
favor of the defendant. He argues that the District Court erred by: (1) granting qualified
immunity on his claims for excessive force and (2) applying the doctrine established in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I.
As this opinion is non-precedential and we write for the parties, our factual
recitation is abbreviated. On February 3, 2009, a fight broke out between two individuals
at a dairy farm in Harmony Township, New Jersey. Santini, who worked at the farm
milking cows, witnessed the fight along with about ten other individuals. One of those
witnesses called the police to report the altercation. Officers from Greenwich Township,
Lopatcong Township, and the New Jersey State Police — about twenty in total —
responded. While Santini was conversing with one officer, Trooper J.L. Fuhrmann from
the State Police called him over. Santini, whose hands were in his pockets, began
describing the incident to Fuhrmann. Fuhrmann yelled at Santini to remove his hands
from his pockets, who complied and explained that his hands were cold from milking all
day. Fuhrmann ordered him to keep his hands visible. Santini continued to describe the
fight he had witnessed, but then he put his hands back into his pockets. Fuhrmann again
told Santini to keep his hands visible. Santini maintains that he complied and apologized,
noting that he had only his phone and wallet in his pockets. He then continued to speak,
but pulled his hands into his sweatshirt sleeves. Fuhrmann then yelled at him to keep his
2
hands visible. In response, Santini said that he was going to return to work and turned
away.
Fuhrmann then said “[c]ome here” and grabbed Santini’s wrist.1 Plaintiff’s Brief
5. The men fell to the ground, and Santini struggled to stand up. As Santini tried to
return to his feet, an officer jumped on top of him and told him to put his hands behind
his back and that he was under arrest. At this point, other officers were on top of Santini,
punching him and striking him with nightsticks. Officers instructed him to stop resisting,
and then officers deployed two bottles of pepper spray against Santini, which he claims
lasted for thirty seconds to a minute. Once Santini was in handcuffs, the officers stopped
their use of force against him.
Santini later filed this action, alleging that the officers violated his rights under the
United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, and New Jersey state law.
Relevant to this appeal are his claims for excessive force. The District Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the officers and the State of New Jersey, concluding inter
alia that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Thereafter, Santini moved for
reconsideration on his excessive force claims. The District Court denied that motion, and
Santini appealed to this Court.
1
In this appeal, Santini argues that “Trooper Fuhrmann grabbed Santini’s wrist . . . and
then jumped on Santini’s back without provocation of any sort.” Santini Br. 21. The
record does not support this assertion. Santini cites the affidavit of a witness, who stated
that after Fuhrmann grabbed Santini, Santini “tr[ied] to release the Trooper’s grip on his
shoulder without being pushy about it.” J.A. 90. Santini himself testified that when
Fuhrmann “pulled my arm back . . . I pulled it forward.” J.A. 50. Thus, even construing
the facts in a light most favorable to Santini, we cannot conclude that an officer tackled
him without provocation.
3
In a precedential opinion, this Court concluded that summary judgment on the
excessive force claims was inappropriate because:
[W]hile the District Court stated the appropriate test to determine qualified
immunity, it failed to properly construe all facts and inferences in Santini’s
favor. . . . [W]hen all facts and inferences are taken in Santini’s favor, a
reasonable factfinder could find that Santini’s constitutional rights were
violated. Therefore, the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on that
issue was inappropriate.
Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 418–19 (3d Cir. 2015). As a result, we vacated the
order of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 419. On
remand, the District Court again granted summary judgment on grounds of qualified
immunity, because it found that the Constitutional right at issue was not clearly
established at the time of the putative violation, and — alternatively — because the claim
was barred by Heck. J.A. 12, 15.2 Santini timely appealed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28
U.S.C. §1343(a)(3), and 29 U.S.C. § 1367. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court’s order granting
summary judgment. SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 357 (3d Cir.
2011).
2
The District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
state law claims. J.A. 16–17.
4
III.
We turn first to the question of qualified immunity. As we noted in this case’s
first appearance before us, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields government
officials who perform discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known.” Santini, 795 F.3d at 417 (quoting
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). We perform a two-step inquiry to
determine a government official’s entitlement to summary judgment on grounds of
qualified immunity: (1) “whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party — show that a government official violated a constitutional right;” and
(2) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id.
(quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). In our prior Santini opinion, we
concluded that “material factual disputes exist as to whether Santini’s constitutional
rights were violated” and therefore found summary judgment inappropriate on the basis
of the first prong of the Saucier inquiry — whether there was a violation of a
constitutional right. Id. at 420.
The District Court, correctly interpreting our opinion, considered the second prong
of the analysis, wherein courts “inquire whether — even though an officer violated an
individual’s constitutional right — immunity should still protect that officer from
liability.” Id. at 417 (quoting Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 207 (3d Cir. 2007)). As
noted above, at issue is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the
violation. To make this determination, we ask “‘whether it would be clear to a
5
reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.’” Id.
(quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202). Thus, a right is clearly established “when its
‘contours . . . [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what
he is doing violates that right.’” Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of the Panther Valley Sch.
Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 142 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615
(1999)). This inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not
as a broad general proposition.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; see also Mullenix v. Luna, 136
S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (noting that “the dispositive question is whether the violative
nature of particular conduct is clearly established”). A plaintiff seeking to evade
summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity therefore “do[es] not require a case
directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional
question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).
Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Santini, the District Court
considered:
whether Plaintiff had a right to be free from the use of force, including the
use of pepper spray and strikes from nightsticks, as a non-suspect witness
who walked away from an investigatory discussion, and who admitted he (1)
unintentionally did not comply with an officer’s request to keep his hands
visible, and (2) resisted arrest.
J.A. 12. We agree with the District Court that this formulation of the question adequately
contextualizes the alleged conduct as Saucier instructs, with consideration of specifics
rather than “broad general proposition[s].” 533 U.S. at 201. This question captures the
particular conduct alleged and allows us meaningfully to consider whether the right at
issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
6
We conclude that the right, if it exists, was not clearly established. First, there are
no cases directly on point that suggest that this conduct is unlawful. Santini cites several
excessive force cases, but none establish a rule for these facts or state a constitutional
right that is obviously applicable to this case. Second, the amount of force used was not
so significant that the objectively reasonable officer would know it to be unlawful. This
is evidenced by the facts that all force stopped as soon as Santini was in handcuffs and
that he suffered no significant or lasting injuries. Finally, the objectively reasonable
officer would not know the use of force on these facts to be unlawful. Even in the light
most favorable to Santini, the facts suggest some level of resistance to Fuhrmann at all
stages of the physical interaction and continued resistance, even as officers instructed him
to stop resisting. Also relevant is the repeated non-compliance with the instruction to
keep hands visible. Even if the right to be free from police use of force in those
circumstances exists, the objectionably reasonable officer might not know that. Because
qualified immunity protects officers from reasonable error, we conclude that the grant of
summary judgment is appropriate.
Having concluded that summary judgment is appropriate on grounds of qualified
immunity, we need not — and do not — reach the issue of the Heck bar.
IV.
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm.
7