The opinion
Case: 15-13042 Date Filed: 09/22/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13042
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-81324-WJZ
LUIS P. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RIC L. BRADSHAW,
in his official capacity as Sheriff of Palm Beach County, et al.,
Defendants,
RICHARD BURDICK,
CHRISTOPHER WOLFE,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 22, 2016)
Case: 15-13042 Date Filed: 09/22/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Before HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Defendants Richard Burdick and Christopher Wolf appeal the district court’s
denial of qualified immunity as to Count VIII of the complaint, which involved
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force against Defendant Wolf in his
individual capacity and for, inter alia, substantive due process violations against
Defendant Burdick in his individual capacity.
The district court also denied the defendants’ summary judgment motions as
to (1) Count III of the complaint, alleging a state-law claim of excessive force
against only the Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, in his official capacity, “as
founded on the actions of Defendant Wolf”; and (2) Count IV of the complaint,
alleging a state-law claim of excessive force against Defendant Wolf in his
individual capacity. Defendant Bradshaw did not file a notice of appeal or a brief
in this appeal. Defendants Burdick and Wolf appealed only as to Count VIII and
not as to Count IV.
After review and oral argument, we conclude that the district court erred in
denying summary judgment to Defendant Burdick on the substantive due process
claims in Count VIII because the federal law as to those claims was not clearly
established at the time of the events, and Defendant Burdick was entitled to
*
Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge, for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 15-13042 Date Filed: 09/22/2016 Page: 3 of 4
qualified immunity on all claims in Count VIII. We conclude, however, that
disputed issues of material fact exist as to under what circumstances and how long
the dog, “Billy,” was engaged in biting plaintiff’s leg, among other factual issues
on that claim. Thus, we cannot say that the district court erred in denying qualified
immunity as a matter of law to Defendant Wolf on plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive
force claim against him in Count VIII.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
3
Case: 15-13042 Date Filed: 09/22/2016 Page: 4 of 4
WRIGHT, District Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join the portion of the majority opinion concluding that Defendant Burdick
is entitled to qualified immunity and that the district court erred in denying
summary judgment in his favor. I respectfully dissent as to the conclusion that
Defendant Wolf is not also entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Even
accepting Plaintiff Rodriguez’s version of the facts, I conclude that Defendant
Wolf did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.
4