The opinion
Case: 12-13198 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13198
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-01790-AT
JOSEPH LAMAR KNIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FORSYTH COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants,
BEN A. FINLEY,
DAVID MARSH,
MARK HOFFMAN,
individually and in their capacity as a
Sheriff's Deputy of Forsyth County, et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 11, 2013)
Case: 12-13198 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and VOORHEES, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Defendants Ben A. Finley, David Marsh, and Mark Hoffman (collectively
the “officers”), members of the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Department, appeal the
district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity
grounds in Plaintiff Joseph Lamar Knight’s civil rights action against them alleging
violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary
judgment for the officers as to Knight’s claim that they unlawfully entered and
remained in his home, but denied summary judgment with regard to Knight’s claim
that the officers used excessive force when Finley shot Knight, a 67-year-old man,
in the upper chest with a bean-bag round, and when Hoffman and Marsh forcibly
removed Knight from the home.
We review the denial of the officers’ motion for summary judgment de
novo, viewing the facts and making all inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Tinker v. Beasley, 429 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, and with the
benefit of oral argument, we agree with the district court that when viewing the
facts and taking all inferences in favor of Knight, there is sufficient evidence to
support a finding that Sergeant Finley violated clearly established law when he
*
Honorable Richard L. Voorhees, United States District Judge for Western District of
North Carolina, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 12-13198 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 3 of 4
deployed lethal force—by shooting Knight in the upper chest with a bean-bag
round from a distance of about three feet—in order to subdue him. See Mercado v.
City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152, 1160–61 (11th Cir. 2005) (denying qualified
immunity to officer who used a “less lethal” munition in a lethal manner when he
shot a distraught subject in the head with the “less lethal” round). Although Knight
was not complying with police orders when he barricaded himself in his bedroom,
a reasonable jury could find that he posed no immediate danger to the officers that
would have justified the use of deadly force against him, and the district court was
therefore correct to deny qualified immunity to Sergeant Finley. See id.
That said, we cannot agree with the district court’s conclusion that Officers
Hoffman and Marsh are not entitled to qualified immunity. Our review of the
record does not convince us that Officers Hoffman and Marsh violated clearly
established law when they handcuffed and forcibly removed Knight, an intoxicated
man who had barricaded himself in his bedroom during a five-hour standoff with
police, from his home. See, e.g., Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843, 850 (11th Cir.
2010) (explaining that “we must be careful to evaluate the reasonableness of an
officer’s conduct on a case-by-case basis from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, and although we affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment with regard to the officers’ entry into the home and the
3
Case: 12-13198 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 4 of 4
district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Sergeant Finley, we reverse the
denial of qualified immunity as to Officers Hoffman and Marsh and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
4