The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-14492 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 20, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00166-CG-C
ANTONIO LOVE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MOBILE, et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants,
LIEUTENANT KEVIN RODGERS,
OFFICER JOE COTNER,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 20, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Love appeals the district court’s decision to grant summary
judgment as to his claim of excessive force against Joe Cotner and as to his claim
of false arrest against Kevin Rodgers. After careful review, we affirm.
Love’s excessive force claim rests on Cotner’s decision to use a taser
against him during the incident in question, which took place on July 24, 2009.
Love’s brief cites only one of our decisions, Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608
F.3d 724 (11th Cir. 2010), to suggest that Fourth Amendment law at the time in
question clearly proscribed Cotner’s conduct. But we decided Brown in 2010,
after the incident about which Love complains. Thus, Brown could not have “put
[Cotner] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Vinyard v.
Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1350 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and emphases
omitted).
As for his false arrest claim, Love argues that there is a genuine issue of fact
regarding whether Rodgers had arguable probable cause to arrest him, and thus
whether he was entitled to qualified immunity. See Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 F.3d
1069, 1079 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting that qualified immunity to a claim of false
arrest is warranted if an officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest).
2
However, it is undisputed that during the incident in question, Love failed to obey
several of the officers’ orders. Thus, the record unambiguously shows that
Rodgers could have reasonably believed that Love was in violation of Mobile City
Code § 39-54, which makes it a crime “for any person to fail to obey the direction
or order of [a police officer] while . . . acting in an official capacity.”
The district court did not err in concluding that, on this record, Cotner and
Rodgers were entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore affirm its grant of
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3