Anthony Medina v. City of Daytona Beach

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 1 of 11

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10552

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ANTHONY MEDINA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH,

a Florida Municipal Corporation,

MARVILLE TUCKER,

in his official capacity and also, individually,

JORGE PAUTH,

in his official capacity and also, individually,

BRENT RAZMEK,

in his official capacity and also, individually,

DARRELL ROLLE,

in his official capacity and also, individually, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 2 of 11

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10552

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-02090-RBD-DCI

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Medina appeals the summary judgment in favor of

the City of Daytona Beach, officers Brent Razmek and Darrell

Rolle, and former officers Marville Tucker and Jorge Pauth, and

against his complaint of excessive force in violation of the Fourth

Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and battery, vicarious liability, and

negligence under Florida law. The officers’ alleged use of force did

not violate Medina’s clearly established right to be free from exces-

sive force. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Just after midnight on July 14, 2021, a City police officer saw

a car driven by Medina swerving back and forth on a road in Day-

tona Beach, Florida. The officer initiated a traffic stop for failure to

maintain a single lane and asked Medina several times to roll down

his rear passenger window. When Medina failed to comply, the of-

ficer radioed for backup. A backup officer ordered Medina from the

vehicle. Because Medina’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his

speech was slurred and slow, and his breath smelled of alcohol, of-

ficers performed field sobriety exercises, to which he consented.

After he refused to complete the exercises, officers arrested him for

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 3 of 11

25-10552 Opinion of the Court 3

driving under the influence. He agreed to a breath test at the police

station, and officers handcuffed him, put him in the back of a patrol

vehicle, and drove him to the police station. He became increas-

ingly belligerent on the way to the station.

The parties’ agreement on the facts ends there. Because this

appeal comes to us on summary judgment, we view the facts in the

light most favorable to Medina, unless video evidence “actually

proves that [Medina’s] version of the facts cannot be true.” See

Brooks v. Miller, 78 F.4th 1267, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 2023).

When Medina arrived at the police station, Officer Tucker,

the breath test operator, escorted a handcuffed Medina to a holding

area and sat him in a chair. During this time, Medina can be seen

and heard on video insulting Tucker, a black man, by calling him

racial and homophobic slurs, and Tucker can be seen and heard

taunting Medina in return. At one point, Medina stood and Tucker

ordered him to sit down, grabbed him by the neck, pushed him

into the chair, and put his hands around Medina’s neck for a few

seconds. The taunting between the two men continued, and Me-

dina told Tucker that Tucker’s mother could “suck [Medina’s]

dick,” to which Tucker told Medina to “pull it out” and wiggled his

tongue at Medina while Medina continued to call Tucker homo-

phobic slurs.

Medina dared Tucker to “touch me you fucking faggot,” and

Tucker tapped his foot on Medina’s knee. Medina continued to

taunt Tucker and stood up again. Tucker told him to sit down

twice, and when Medina refused, Tucker grabbed Medina by the

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 4 of 11

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10552

neck and pushed his head down while other officers pushed Me-

dina into the chair. Tucker held Medina’s head between Medina’s

knees for several seconds while Medina was seated, while Medina

told Tucker to “suck my dick,” and Tucker replied, “suck it your-

self.” After Tucker took his hand off Medina’s head and started to

walk away, Medina shouted at Tucker that he was a “piece of shit,”

got up again, and ignored repeated instructions to sit down. Alt-

hough he eventually sat down, this pattern continued.

Medina refused to take the breath test and Officers Tucker,

Pauth, Rolle, and Razmek led him out of the holding area in hand-

cuffs to the sally port for transport to the county jail. In the sally

port, Medina confronted Tucker and called him “a pussy.” Tucker

then grabbed Medina by the throat, pushed him into the patrol ve-

hicle several feet from where they stood, and held his throat for

several seconds before Pauth separated them. Medina continued to

insult Tucker while officers held him against the patrol car and un-

cuffed his wrists from behind his back and re-cuffed them in front.

Medina attempted to kick Tucker in the groin seconds after

he was re-cuffed. Tucker lunged at Medina and he, Pauth, and

Rolle pushed him to the ground. Tucker and Pauth punched Me-

dina multiple times while Rolle attempted to grab Medina’s feet.

The officers held Medina on the ground while Razmek went to re-

trieve a set of ankle cuffs to restrain him.

The officers eventually loaded Medina into a transport van

while he continued to insult them and ignore their instructions. At

one point, while in the transport van, Medina appeared

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 5 of 11

25-10552 Opinion of the Court 5

nonresponsive. Medina was transported to the county jail and was

medically evaluated and cleared. He suffered a forehead cut,

bloody nose, allegedly deformed chin, post-traumatic stress disor-

der, and “believe[d]” at one point that was concussed and uncon-

scious.

Medina sued the City, Tucker, Pauth, Razmek, and Rolle in

state court, and the City removed the action to the district court.

He alleged that Tucker, Pauth, Razmek, and Rolle battered him, in

violation of Florida law, and violated his constitutional right to be

free from excessive force. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleged that the

City was negligent and vicariously liable for the officers’ actions.

The district court granted the officers summary judgment

based on qualified immunity. It ruled that the force Tucker and

Pauth used was objectively reasonable and that Razmek and Rolle

were immune from suit for their alleged failure to intervene. It also

ruled that because the officers did not use excessive force against

Medina, his battery claims against the officers and vicarious liability

claims against the City failed. Finally, it ruled that Medina’s negli-

gence claim against the City failed because he did not allege dam-

ages that stemmed from the City’s alleged failure to provide medi-

cal care.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a summary judgment de novo. Jones v. Ceinski, 136

F.4th 1057, 1061 (11th Cir. 2025). “Summary judgment is war-

ranted if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 6 of 11

6 Opinion of the Court 25-10552

of law.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e

view the evidence, draw all reasonable factual inferences, and re-

solve all reasonable doubts in favor of the non-movant.” Id. (alter-

ation adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

We divide our discussion into two parts. First, we explain

that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Medina

could not lead a reasonable jury to find that the officers violated

Medina’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.

Second, we explain that Medina’s state-law claims fail because the

force used against him was not excessive, and he failed to allege

damages that were proximately caused by the officers’ act of leav-

ing him in a transport van without medical aid.

A. A Reasonable Jury Could Not Find that Officers Violated Me-

dina’s Right.

Medina argues that Officer Tucker violated his Fourth

Amendment right to be free from excessive force through three

acts: forcing his head down by the back of his neck, grabbing his

throat and pushing him against the patrol car, and punching him

after he was pushed to the ground. He argues that Officer Pauth

violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

force when he also punched him after he had been pushed to the

ground. He argues that Officers Razmek and Rolle are liable for

their failure to intervene while Tucker and Pauth punched him.

And he argues that the City is liable for the actions of its officers.

Medina does not dispute that the officers were acting within their

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 7 of 11

25-10552 Opinion of the Court 7

discretionary authority, so he “must establish that a reasonable jury

could find that [the officers] violated [his] constitutional

right . . . and that his right was clearly established when [the offic-

ers] violated it.” Id. at 1061-62 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

“A claim of excessive force arising from . . . ‘[a] seizure of a

free citizen’ is reviewed under a standard of ‘objective reasonable-

ness.’” Id. at 1062 (quoting Graham v., Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 399

(1989)). Whether the use of force is objectively reasonable is a

“fact-intensive inquiry.” Id. We must weigh “the quantum of force

employed against these factors—the severity of the crime at issue;

whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the

officers or others; and whether the suspect actively resisted arrest

or attempted to evade arrest by flight.” Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted). We do not “mechanically apply . . . these factors.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider “the relation-

ship between the need and amount of force used and the extent of

the injury inflicted.” Id.

“We do not consider an officer’s subjective intentions.” Id.

(citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 397). “An officer’s evil intentions will

not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively rea-

sonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an

objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.” Graham, 490

U.S. at 397. “We may consider an officer’s language when evaluat-

ing the totality of the circumstances.” Jones, 136 F.4th at 1062. But

“words alone [cannot] make . . . an otherwise proper[] use of force

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 8 of 11

8 Opinion of the Court 25-10552

unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (internal quo-

tation marks omitted).

Because Officer Tucker’s intentions do not affect the objec-

tive reasonableness inquiry, that he may have provoked Medina

throughout parts of the encounter, although unprofessional, is not

dispositive. Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. The question is “whether

[Tucker’s and Pauth’s] use of force was reasonably proportionate

to the need for it.” Jones, 136 F.4th at 1062. “[A] police officer vio-

lates the Fourth Amendment, and is denied qualified immunity, if

he or she uses gratuitous and excessive force against a suspect who

is under control, not resisting, and obeying commands.” Id. at 1065.

When we view the facts in the light most favorable to Me-

dina, we conclude that a reasonable jury could not find that Officer

Tucker used excessive force during either the incident in the hold-

ing area or the sally port. Officer Tucker’s initial use of force oc-

curred in the holding area after Medina failed to comply with two

instructions to sit down. After the second refusal, Tucker forced

Medina’s head between his knees, while Medina continued to in-

sult him. The entire encounter, from the initial grab until Tucker

released Medina’s head, lasted approximately 31 seconds. Because

Medina failed to comply, Tucker had the authority to use some de-

gree of force to subdue him, and the force used here was “reason-

ably proportionate to the need for it.” See id. at 1062, 1065.

A reasonable jury also could not find that Tucker used ex-

cessive force when he grabbed Medina’s throat and pushed him

against the patrol car in the sally port. This use of force occurred

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 9 of 11

25-10552 Opinion of the Court 9

after Medina continued to insult Tucker and attempted to kick him

in the groin. The time from when Tucker lunged at Medina,

grabbed his throat, pushed him against the patrol car, and took him

to the ground to prevent further kicking lasted a couple of seconds.

As in the holding area, Tucker had the authority to use some de-

gree of force to subdue Medina, and this force was also “reasonably

proportionate to the need for it.” See id.

A reasonable jury also could not find that Officers Tucker

and Pauth used excessive force when they punched Medina after

he had been taken to the ground. Medina continued to struggle

with the officers, and Tucker and Pauth punched him for about 16

seconds while Rolle attempted to keep his legs still. After Rolle had

control of Medina’s legs, Tucker and Pauth stopped punching

him—even before Razmek placed him in ankle cuffs. See Graham,

490 U.S. at 396 (explaining that courts must consider “that police

officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in cir-

cumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about

the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”).

Like the other uses of force against Medina, this use of force was

also “reasonably proportionate to the need for it.” See id.

Finally, a reasonable jury could not find that Officers

Razmek and Rolle were liable for any alleged failure to intervene.

See Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301, 1312 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Plainly,

an officer cannot be liable for failing to stop or intervene when

there was no constitutional violation being committed”). And

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 10 of 11

10 Opinion of the Court 25-10552

because no constitutional violation occurred, a reasonable jury

could not find that the City was liable for the actions of its officers.

B. Medina’s State-Law Claims Fail.

Medina makes three arguments about his claims under state

law. He argues that the officers’ use of force constituted a battery,

for which the officers and the City should be held liable. He also

argues that the City should be held liable for assault based on Of-

ficer Tucker’s act of touching Medina’s knee with his foot. And he

argues that the City is liable because its officers left him in the

transport van without medical aid.

Medina’s arguments fail. First, a claim of battery under Flor-

ida law is similar to a claim of excessive force under the Fourth

Amendment. “A battery claim for excessive force is analyzed by fo-

cusing upon whether the amount of force used was reasonable un-

der the circumstances.” City of Miami v. Sanders, 672 So. 2d 46, 47

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). For the same reasons that the force used

against Medina was not excessive under the Fourth Amendment,

it was not excessive under Florida law. Second, the City was not

vicariously liable for either battery or assault. See Gabor v. Remington

Lodging & Hosp., LLC, 413 So. 3d 261, 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)

(“‘[I]f the employee is not liable the employer is not liable.’” (quot-

ing Mallory v. O’Neil, 69 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 1954))). Finally, be-

cause Medina did not allege any injuries that stemmed from the

officers’ act of leaving him in a transport van without medical aid,

the City was not liable for any alleged negligence. See Fla. Dep’t of

Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2007) (“To maintain an action

USCA11 Case: 25-10552 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 Page: 11 of 11

25-10552 Opinion of the Court 11

for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a

duty, that the defendant breached that duty, and that this breach

caused the plaintiff damages.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the City,

Tucker, Pauth, Razmek, and Rolle.