Richmond v. Badia

• Citation: 47 F.4th 1172
• Decision Date: 22 August 2022
• Docket Number: 20-14337
• Parties: Trellus RICHMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mario J. BADIA, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

47 F.4th 1172

Trellus RICHMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mario J. BADIA, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-14337

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed: August 22, 2022

Carlus Leandrus Haynes, Haynes Law, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Louis Jean-Baptiste, Jr., Webster & Baptiste Attorneys at Law, PLLC, Tallahassee, FL, Stephen G. Webster, Law Office of Stephen G. Webster, LLC, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Newsom, Branch, and Brasher, Circuit Judges.

BRASHER, Circuit Judge:

The question in this appeal is whether a school resource officer is entitled to qualified immunity for throwing a seventh grader to the floor of a middle school lobby. One morning, Trellus Richmond arrived late to middle school with his mother. Like many thirteen-year-olds, he was concerned with his appearance—so much so that he was violating school rules by wearing a hoodie to hide an embarrassing haircut. When his mother told him to take it off, he resisted; his mother pulled at the hoodie, which led him to push her away. That skirmish prompted the front office attendant to radio the school resource officer, Mario Badia, who arrived moments later.

After he arrived, Badia spoke with Richmond for over two minutes standing in the lobby. Then, without warning, Badia grabbed Richmond's face, shoved him in the chest, and threw him to the ground using an "armbar" technique. Badia pinned Richmond down for over three minutes, then pushed him in the back as he walked away. Based largely on a video of the incident, Badia was prosecuted for, and pleaded guilty to, the crime of battery against Richmond.

In this civil action, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Badia on Richmond's claims for false arrest and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and battery under Florida state law. The district court held that Badia had arguable probable cause to arrest Richmond for pushing his mother and, therefore, had qualified immunity as to the false arrest claim. The district court similarly held that Badia had qualified immunity as to the excessive force claim and statutory immunity to the Florida-law battery claim.

47 F.4th 1178

We agree with the district court's assessment of the false arrest claim but disagree with the district court's conclusion on the excessive force and battery claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Because the district court granted summary judgment, the following facts are taken in the light most favorable to Richmond as the non-moving party. We have also watched the video of the incident.

Richmond was a seventh-grade student at Kissimmee Middle School in Kissimmee, Florida. One morning, his mother brought him to school late, and they went to the school's front office to check in. Richmond was wearing a hoodie that morning to conceal a new haircut that he found embarrassing. Because the hoodie violated the school dress code, his mother told him to remove it. He did not comply, which led to an argument. Richmond eventually began removing the hoodie with his mother's assistance. During the exchange, Richmond appeared to push his mother. Believing that Richmond had pushed his mother, the front desk assistant radioed for Badia, the school resource officer. While walking to the front office, another staff member told Badia that a student was acting disrespectfully and had "hit or pushed" his mother.

When Badia arrived, he spoke briefly to the front desk assistant and Richmond's mother. By this time, Richmond's hoodie was gone, and he was standing alone at the front desk. For about two minutes, Badia confronted Richmond by cursing at him, mocking him, and pointing his finger at him. Richmond did not look directly at Badia while he was talking, so Badia grabbed the thirteen-year-old student's face. Richmond reacted to the hand coming at his face by trying to block it with his arm and stepping backwards. Badia then shoved Richmond in the chest and grabbed his shirt and arm. Badia pushed Richmond to the center of the lobby and used an "armbar" technique to lift Richmond off his feet, flip him onto his back, and slam him to the ground.

Badia held Richmond down by his forearm, twisting his wrist as he was on the floor. After about three minutes, Badia released Richmond, allowing him to return to his feet. Badia then pushed him to the front desk and told Richmond to "remember him." Badia asked Richmond's mother if she wanted to press charges against her son for battery, but she declined.

Richmond was never charged with a crime for his conduct that morning. Badia was investigated, terminated, and prosecuted for child abuse and battery. The arrest warrant charged Badia with grabbing, shoving, and slamming Richmond to the ground "for no apparent lawful reason." Badia ultimately pleaded guilty to battery, which requires "[a]ctually and intentionally touch[ing] or strik[ing] another person against the will of the other" or "[i]ntentionally caus[ing] bodily harm to another person." Fla. Stat. § 784.03(1)(a).

Badia's use of force left Richmond with pain in his wrist, ankle, and back for which he sought medical treatment. The pain in his ankle continued for several months following the incident, and the pain in his back continued for three to four years.

Richmond sued Badia in Florida state court for, among other things, false arrest and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and battery under Florida state law. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and after discovery, Badia moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Badia's motion, concluding that he was entitled to qualified immunity for Richmond's false arrest and excessive

47 F.4th 1179

force claims. The district court also concluded Badia was entitled to statutory immunity on the state law battery claim. Richmond timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all the evidence, and drawing all reasonable factual inferences, in favor of the nonmoving party." Amy v. Carnival Corp. , 961 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). "A grant of summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (cleaned up).

"A fact is ‘material’ if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." BBX Capital v. FDIC , 956 F.3d 1304, 1314 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). "A dispute over such a fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. Although we must view the facts in favor of the nonmoving party, we accept video evidence over the nonmoving party's account when the former obviously contradicts the latter. See Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee , 625 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010).

III. DISCUSSION

Richmond argues that the district court erred in concluding that Badia was entitled to (1) qualified immunity for the Section 1983 claims and (2) statutory immunity for the battery claim. We discuss each argument in turn.

A. Richmond's Section 1983 Claims

We start with qualified immunity on the federal claims. Qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ). For qualified immunity to apply, a government official must initially establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority when the alleged wrongful acts occurred. Melton v. Abston , 841 F.3d 1207, 1221 (11th Cir. 2016), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "Once it has been determined that an official was acting with the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that qualified immunity is inappropriate." Id. "First, the plaintiff must show that the official's alleged conduct violated a constitutionally protected right." Id. "Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct." Id.

Here, Badia was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged wrongful acts. Badia was employed as a school resource officer, and his duties included responding to calls regarding possible criminal activity. Consequently, the burden shifts to Richmond to show that Badia is not entitled to qualified immunity from his false arrest and excessive force claims.

1. False Arrest and Excessive Force Claims Must Be Evaluated Separately.

Before addressing the facts of this case, we must briefly review the relationship

47 F.4th 1180

between claims for false arrest and excessive force. Richmond's claims for false arrest and excessive force are both grounded in the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV ; see also Crocker v. Beatty , 995 F.3d 1232, 1246 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that excessive force claims for arrestees are governed by the Fourth Amendment). As to false arrest, he argues that Badia lacked probable cause to seize him. As to excessive force, he argues that Badia used force that was unreasonably excessive when Badia seized him.

To succeed on a false arrest claim, a plaintiff must establish (1) a lack of probable cause and (2) an arrest. An arrest—the quintessential seizure of a person—occurs when the government applies physical force to seize a person or asserts lawful authority to which the subject accedes. California v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 624, 626-27, 111 S.Ct....