The opinion
Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13001
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02936-TWT
JIMMY DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
OFFICER J. M. WOLFORD,
in his individual and official capacity,
SUHAIL ALUTAIBI,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 18, 2014)
Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Davis brought this action for damages against Officer J. W. Wolford
and the City of Atlanta, Georgia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable
cause and using excessive force. 1 The district court granted summary judgment for
Officer Wolford on the basis of qualified immunity, and for the City because Davis
failed to demonstrate any constitutional deprivation resulting from a City custom
or policy.
Wolford arrested Davis for following too closely after Davis’s automobile
collided with a vehicle operated by Suhail Alutaibi on August 1, 2011, on
Piedmont Avenue in Atlanta. There was a dispute about who was at fault, and
Wolford credited the version of events given by Alutaibi rather than Davis. Davis
contends that he did not have a chance to explain his side of the story and that he
began asking Wolford to call a supervisor. Wolford asked Davis to sign the
citation. Davis claims that as he was moving to sign it, Wolford placed him in
handcuffs and moved him to the back of Wolford’s patrol car. Wolford contends
that Davis refused to sign the citation. After complaints by Davis that the
handcuffs were too tight and that there was a witness who could verify his version
1
Wolford also asserted several state law claims, but these are not part of this appeal.
2
Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 3 of 4
of events, Atlanta Police Department supervisors were called to the scene along
with the eyewitness who eventually verified Davis’s version of the accident. The
supervisors apologized to Davis and released him. Davis later filed an official
complaint with the Atlanta Police Department, which was investigated and resulted
in an official determination that Wolford had failed to conduct a proper accident
investigation. Because Davis was treated for injuries to his wrist, and sustained
further injury including a torn rotator cuff, he also filed a complaint against
Wolford and the City alleging that his constitutional right to be free from an
unreasonable seizure was violated and that he was subjected to excessive force.
After thorough review, we agree with the district court that, although
Wolford could have conducted a more thorough investigation at the scene, the
investigation was not so deficient as to deprive Wolford of qualified immunity.
Wolford is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if he had “arguable probable
cause” for the arrest. See Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th
Cir. 2004). It was within his discretion to initially credit the account of Alutaibi in
determining who was responsible for the accident. Unlike Kingsland v. City of
Miami,2 the record here lacks any indication that Officer Wolford fabricated or
misrepresented any information to support probable cause for Davis’s arrest. The
district court correctly held that, under these circumstances, Davis did not establish
2
See 382 F.3d 1220, 1226-27 (11th Cir. 2004).
3
Case: 14-13001 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Page: 4 of 4
that no reasonable officer could have thought there was probable cause to arrest
him.
Additionally, the district court correctly determined that Officer Wolford is
entitled to qualified immunity on Davis’s excessive force claim. The record does
not demonstrate that the amount of force used was plainly unlawful, and we have
previously acknowledged that “the typical arrest involves some force and injury.”
Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351-53 (11th Cir. 2002). The district court
held that the handcuffing in this case did not constitute excessive force, and we
agree. We also agree with the district court that Davis’s vague contention that the
City failed to properly train and supervise Officer Wolford because of an official
policy or custom of the City is also without merit. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2037-38 (1978).
Accordingly, under the facts alleged by Davis, we conclude that the district
court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants is due to be
AFFIRMED.
4