The opinion
Case: 15-10756 Date Filed: 11/10/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10756
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00136-LGW-RSB
TORRENCE SHEPPARD,
DEVONTRAY MYERS,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
versus
PIERCE COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants,
CHRIS WRIGHT,
in his individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 10, 2015)
Case: 15-10756 Date Filed: 11/10/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Before HULL, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Detective Chris Wright of the Blackshear County Police Department appeals
from the denial of his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity
grounds. In a complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Torrence Sheppard
alleges that Wright violated his constitutional right to be free from excessive force
during Sheppard’s arrest for a burglary at Boyette Electric.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of summary judgment; whether
a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is also a question of law that we
review de novo. See Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1190 (11th Cir. 2002). We
must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff; here, Sheppard. See id. After viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to and resolving all issues of material fact in favor of
Sheppard, the legal question of whether Wright is entitled to qualified immunity
must be determined “under that version of the facts.” See id.
The issue at the heart of this appeal is whether the evidence at this stage of
the case, construed in the light most favorable to Sheppard, presents a genuine
issue about whether Wright conspired with, aided and abetted, and/or actively
participated in the beating of Sheppard by Carl Boyette, the owner of Boyette
Electric. According to the deposition testimony of both Wright and Boyette,
2
Case: 15-10756 Date Filed: 11/10/2015 Page: 3 of 4
Boyette is Wright’s friend. Prior to the incident, Wright had been assisting Boyette
regarding the investigation of thefts of copper wire from Boyette Electric. Under
Sheppard’s version of the facts, Wright detained Sheppard on the side of the road,
invited Boyette to their location, allowed Boyette to threaten Sheppard’s life, and
held him still so that Boyette could strike him in the face with a flashlight, all while
Sheppard was handcuffed, non-resisting, and subdued. The district court found
that there was a genuine issue regarding whether Wright used excessive force
against Sheppard by holding him up while handcuffed to permit the assault by
Boyette.
We agree that there is enough evidence to permit a jury to reasonably find
that Wright acted in concert with Boyette, permitting him to strike Sheppard, while
Sheppard was compliant, handcuffed, and in custody. Given the above-mentioned
facts and other evidence in the record, which together are construed in a light most
favorable to Sheppard, summary judgment was properly denied because it is
clearly established law in this circuit that a police officer violates the Fourth
Amendment, and is denied qualified immunity, if that officer uses excessive force
against a handcuffed, non-resisting suspect who has already been subdued. See
Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1333–34 (11th Cir. 2008); Lee, 284 F.3d at
1199. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s denial of summary
judgment as to Wright is due to be affirmed.
3
Case: 15-10756 Date Filed: 11/10/2015 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4