Case: 16-17041 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17041
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-02814-EAK-TGW
DEMETRIUS LAREDO WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DANIEL F. POVEDA,
JENNA ELIZABETH ROBERTS,
ANDREW P. VIEHMANN,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 21, 2018)
Case: 16-17041 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Walker appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, in which he alleged that
several St. Petersburg police officers used excessive force in the course of arresting
him in 2012. In particular, Walker contends that the district court erred (1) in
refusing to consider in its summary judgment analysis his verified amended pro se
complaint and his verified pro se summary judgment response, and (2) in resolving
disputed material facts against him. After careful review of the briefs and the
record, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we agree with Walker and
therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In granting summary judgment, the district court stated that Walker could
not “rely solely on his complaint and other initial pleadings to contest a motion for
summary judgment supported by evidentiary material, but must respond with
affidavits, depositions, or otherwise to show that there are material issues of fact
which require trial.” That was error. Walker verified his complaint and summary
judgment response in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by attesting to the truth of
his factual assertions under penalty of perjury, and we have held that pleadings
verified under § 1746 are admissible (and may substitute for sworn affidavits) on
*
Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 16-17041 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 3 of 3
summary judgment. See, e.g., Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090,
1098 (11th Cir. 2014); Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 749 n.5
(11th Cir. 2010).
Walker further contends that the district court impermissibly resolved
disputed material facts against him on summary judgment. Although we think it a
close question, we conclude that, if read liberally and in the light most favorable to
him—as they must be, see, e.g., Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262,
1263 (11th Cir. 1998)—Walker’s verified complaint and summary judgment
response adequately reveal a factual dispute that makes summary judgment
improper.1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1
We note for the record that Walker was very ably represented on a pro bono basis by Mr.
Christopher R. Healy of the law firm of King & Spalding LLP. The Court sincerely appreciates
Mr. Healy’s service to his client and the justice system.
3