The opinion
Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 12/04/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13009
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-03449-MHC
MARTHE BIEN-AIME,
R.N.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER CHRISTY VICE,
LT. MARK TINKEY,
OFFICER C. L. HYATT,
OFFICER SHAWN HUMPHREYS,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 4, 2015)
Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 12/04/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOLAT, WILSON, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We vacate our prior opinion in this appeal, Bien-Aime v. Vice, No. 15-13009
(11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2015), and substitute for it this one. In all other respects, the
appellant’s petition for rehearing, insofar as it is addressed to the panel, is denied.
Marthe Bien-Aime is a registered nurse who would not let City of
Lawrenceville Police Officers enter the mental health facility where she was
working as a charge nurse without first obtaining permission from her supervisor.
The officers explained to Bien-Aime that they had a warrant to arrest a patient
accused of sexually assaulting another patient. Bien-Aime informed the officers
that she had a responsibility to protect her patients, and a struggle ensued resulting
in her arrest for obstruction. The district attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges
against her. Bien-Aime then brought this action against Officers Vice, Tinkey,
Hyatt and Humphreys, asserting a constitutional claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
Bien-Aime alleged in her complaint that the officers used excessive force in
conducting her arrest including throwing her to the floor, handcuffing her tightly
and then tasing her while handcuffed. The district court granted summary
judgment to all four officers and Bien-Aime appeals.
In Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014), the Supreme Court emphasized
the importance of viewing the evidence and drawing factual inferences in favor of
2
Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 12/04/2015 Page: 3 of 4
the nonmovant when the district court considers a motion for summary judgment.
Id. at 1865. On de novo review, we are also obligated to view all evidence and
factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. If
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P 56(a).
On appeal, Bien-Aime argues that the district court failed to construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to her, and that reasonable jurors could find
that there was either no need for the officers to use any force at all, or alternatively,
that the level of force they used was excessive under the circumstances.
Contrary to Bien-Aime’s argument, the district court viewed the evidence
presented by the parties in the light most favorable to Bien-Aime with regard to the
central facts in the case and drew all justifiable inferences in her favor. The facts
in the light most favorable to Bien-Aime show that she resisted the officers’
attempts to execute a valid arrest warrant. The officers used no more force than
was necessary in response to her repeated refusal to comply with their lawful
commands. The amount of force they used to overcome her resistance was not
excessive.
Furthermore, Bien-Aime is unable to meet her burden of proving that the
officers violated clearly established law. The officers are entitled to qualified
immunity from liability in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not
3
Case: 15-13009 Date Filed: 12/04/2015 Page: 4 of 4
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
[officer] would have known.” Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An officer will be entitled to qualified
immunity if his actions were objectively reasonable, that is if an objectively
reasonable officer in the same situation could have believed that the force used was
not excessive.” Id. In the Fourth Amendment context, we determine whether
excessive force was used by asking “whether a reasonable officer would believe
that [the] level of force [was] necessary in the situation at hand.” Lee v. Ferraro,
284 F.3d 1188, 1197 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here,
considering Bien-Aime’s repeated refusal to comply with the officers’ directive,
and the de minimus force used, we cannot say that the officers violated any clearly
established law. In this Circuit, “we recognize that the typical arrest involves some
force and injury.” Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002).
Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bien-Aime
and carefully evaluating the circumstances of this case, we agree with the district
courts that the force used by the officers during their arrest of Bien-Aime did not
violate the Constitution.
We affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants.
AFFIRMED.
4