The opinion
Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15393
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-21766-JLK
ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CITY OF SWEETWATER,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al.,
Defendants,
PAUL ABREU,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 27, 2015)
Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a police officer’s interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of
his motion for summary judgment in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Paul Abreu, a police officer for the City of Sweetwater, Florida, argues that he was
entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff Alberto Dominguez’s excessive force
claim because, according to Officer Abreu, video evidence showed
incontrovertibly that Mr. Dominguez was behaving in a threatening manner toward
him before he forcibly maneuvered Mr. Dominguez to the floor inside the
Sweetwater police station. After reviewing this video evidence, however, we agree
with the district court that a genuine dispute of material fact exists over whether
Mr. Dominguez resisted or threatened Officer Abreu in any way.
“We have repeatedly ruled that a police officer violates 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.” Saunders v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing cases
dating back to 2000). Because the facts as construed in Mr. Dominguez’s favor
establish that he was handcuffed and compliant,1 there is, consequently, a triable
1
“We review de novo the district court’s disposition of a summary judgment motion based on
qualified immunity, resolving all issues of material fact in favor of [the plaintiff] and then
answering the legal question of whether [the defendant is] entitled to qualified immunity under
2
Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 3 of 4
issue whether Officer Abreu’s aggressive takedown action was “gratuitous and
constitutionally excessive.” Id. at 1270.
Officer Abreu’s argument that he used only de minimis force has no merit.
Although the use of de minimis force during a valid seizure cannot give rise to an
excessive force claim, Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000),
Officer Abreu cannot cite to any authority suggesting that the level of force he
used was de minimis in the context of a compliant suspect who is securely in
custody. At best, the line of authority to which he cites approves of only a minor
push or shove in such circumstances. See, e.g., Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7
F.3d 1552, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1993), modified, 14 F.3d 583 (11th Cir. 1994); see
also Mobley v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 783 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir.
2015) (per curiam) (“Our decisions demonstrate that the point at which a suspect is
handcuffed and poses no risk of danger to the officer often is the pivotal point for
excessive-force claims.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Our
case law does not support extending qualified immunity where the level of force
used against a secured, compliant suspect was analogous to the aggressive
takedown that occurred here. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order denying
Officer Abreu’s motion for summary judgment, Dominguez v. City of Sweetwater,
that version of the facts.” Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
3
Case: 14-15393 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 4 of 4
No. 13-CV-21766, 2014 WL 5529646 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2014), for the reasons
articulated in the order.
AFFIRMED.
4