[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 12, 2008
No. 07-13776
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00843-CV-5-CLS
RICKY LEE SCHEUERMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, CITY OF,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant,
JEFFREY WEABER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 12, 2008)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellee Rickey Lee Scheuerman sued Appellant Investigator Jeffrey
Weaber, asserting Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest/imprisonment and excessive
force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims of assault and battery and
unlawful detention under Alabama law. The district court determined Appellant
was not entitled to qualified immunity from the excessive force claim or
discretionary function immunity from the state law claims, and it denied
Appellant’s motion for summary judgment.1 On appeal, Appellant contends the
force he used against Appellee was reasonable under the circumstances, since a
reasonable officer could have objectively believed Appellee was using his vehicle
as a deadly weapon. As to the state law claims, Appellant asserts he was engaged
in a discretionary function and Appellee failed to overcome the presumption of
discretionary function immunity by showing Appellant acted willfully,
maliciously, fraudulently, or in bad faith.
On the excessive force claim, the district court determined Appellant’s use
of deadly force was not objectively reasonable under the totality of the
1
The district court correctly dismissed Appellee’s federal unlawful arrest claim, since
Appellant never arrested Appellee. However, the court noted Appellee’s unlawful detention
claim was also one for false imprisonment. Appellant’s summary judgment motion did not
address the false imprisonment claim, instead focusing solely on why Appellee’s false arrest
claim was due to be dismissed. So, the false imprisonment claim was not before the district
court, who noted the claim would be addressed at trial. Since the district court did not address
the false imprisonment claim in ruling on summary judgment, the claim is not before us on
appeal.
2
circumstances. Also, the court noted summary judgment on the grounds of
qualified immunity was inappropriate, since Appellee created a serious factual
dispute as to Appellant’s version of the events. Finally, the court decided
Appellant violated clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would
have known, based on the Supreme Court’s having ruled deadly force may not be
used on an unarmed burglary suspect merely to prevent escape. See Tennessee v.
Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 21 (1985). The court concluded it was clearly established at
the time of the incident that the actions alleged by Appellee were unconstitutional.
As to the state law claims against Appellant, the district court noted both
federal and Alabama courts have recognized statutes or police department rules
may eliminate an officer’s discretion, making discretionary function immunity
unavailable. The court then set forth various Huntsville Police Department
directives, which Appellant would have violated under Appellee’s version of the
events. The court concluded these violations would strip Appellant of
discretionary function immunity.
We review the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on
qualified immunity de novo, construing all facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Tinker v. Beasley, 429 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005). After
carefully examining the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s
3
extensive opinion, we conclude the district court did not err in denying
Appellant’s summary judgment motion. Appellant’s alleged use of deadly force
was clearly unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and Appellant
had fair warning his conduct violated Appellee’s constitutional rights. Thus,
Appellant is not entitled to qualified immunity from Appellee’s excessive force
claim. As to the state law claims, even if Appellant were engaged in a
discretionary function during the incident, he is not entitled to discretionary
function immunity at the summary judgment stage, since Appellee has raised a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellant acted willfully, maliciously,
or in bad faith.
AFFIRMED.
4