# Suzanne Harrell v. Larry Campbell

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · October 5, 2007 · 250 F. App'x 284

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/56714

## Case

- **Full name:** Suzanne HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** October 5, 2007
- **Citations:** 250 F. App'x 284
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Black, Marcus, Cox
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/56714

## Opinion text

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 07-11151 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 5, 2007
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK

D.C. Docket No. 06-00362-CV-4-RH-WCS

SUZANNE HARRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES GOODMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________

(October 5, 2007)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James Goodman appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary

judgment grounded upon qualified immunity. He contends that his actions did not
violate the Constitution, but even if they did, the law was not so clearly established

as to make it obvious that his actions violated federal law.

The facts are disputed. We exercise our discretion to accept the district court’s

recitation of the facts for summary judgment purposes. See Gonzalez v. Lee County

Hous. Auth., 161 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 1998).

Having considered the briefs and the relevant parts of the record, we find no

reversible error in the district court’s determination that, viewing the facts in the light

most favorable to Harrell, the use of deadly force was unwarranted and violated

clearly established law. Summary judgment was properly denied because the fact-

finder could conclude that Harrell did not “pose[] a threat of serious physical harm,

either to the officer or to others.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S. Ct.

1694, 1701 (1985). Thus, the use of deadly force was not justified. And, Harrell’s

state court convictions do not establish Goodman’s qualified immunity defense for

the reasons stated by the district court. (R.1-23 at 8, 9.)

The issue of qualified immunity remains in the case and will have to be

addressed at trial. We decide only that Goodman is not due summary judgment on

this record.

AFFIRMED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/56714. Public record. Not legal advice.