Laura Pena v. Christopher Marcus, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Laura Esperanza Pena. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 1 of 17

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17635
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-00069-GKS-TBS
LAURA ESPERANZA PENA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHRISTOPHER MARCUS, OSVALDO CRUZ, KRISTOPHER LOTT,
MATTHEW BUTLER, BRIAN BEAULIEU, CHRIS DELOTTE, ERIC
SHELLENBERGER, CHRISTOPHER WRZESIN, and JOHN TORRES,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 6, 2017)
Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 2 of 17

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) conducted a search
of plaintiff Laura Pena’s home. In executing the entry into the residence and the
search, and taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Orange
County deputies caused Pena’s foot to be fractured, hit her in the shoulder with a
rifle, and caused physical damage to her home. Pena subsequently sued the
deputies in their individual capacities under § 1983 and Florida law. In her
complaint, Pena asserts that the deputies used excessive force and unlawfully
deprived her of property in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and that they committed assault, battery, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence under
Florida law. The district court granted summary judgment to the deputies,
concluding that they are entitled to federal qualified immunity and Florida
sovereign immunity because they acted reasonably. Pena appeals the district
court’s summary judgment order. We affirm.
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Factual Background

In March 2013, the Sheriff’s Office received a tip concerning narcotics and
gang activity at 945 Vista Palm Way, which was owned by sixty-seven year old
Pena. The deputies conducted a “trash pull” at the house and found a residue that
tested presumptively positive for cannabis. They also observed Daniel Santiago,
2

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 3 of 17

Pena’s grandson and a suspected CRIPS gang member, enter the home. When
Pena invited deputies into the house, they saw mail, covered in gang symbols,
addressed to Santiago.
Averring their belief that Santiago resided at 945 Vista Palm Way and that
firearms and controlled substances were present, the deputies sought a warrant to
search the residence. A state court judge issued a warrant to search the home for
drugs and firearms. The parties agree that the warrant is facially valid.
The Special Weapons and Tactical Unit (SWAT) and Gang Enforcement
Unit of the Sheriff’s Office executed the search warrant on April 12, 2013. Pena
was home at the time with her disabled adult daughter. As to the events leading up
to the deputies’ entry into the home, Pena’s version of those events has not been
consistent. In her Second Amended Complaint, filed in June of 2015, Pena alleges
that the deputies knocked on her front door, announced that they were with the
Sheriff’s Office, and commanded her to open the door. According to the
Complaint, Pena complied with this order and opened the door, at which point,
without any warning, the group of deputies kicked or shoved the door into Pena,
causing her to fall to the floor, after which they entered the home and then struck
Pena as she lay on the floor.
In her deposition, Pena described a somewhat different version of events.
Specifically, she testified that while cooking in her kitchen, she saw men dressed
3

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 4 of 17

like soldiers and heard them saying something through a megaphone. She heard “a
noise” that sounded “like a voice” through a megaphone but “did not hear what
they were saying correctly.” Two to three minutes passed between when Pena first
saw a uniformed man and when she made her way to the front door to open it. At
the same moment that Pena went to open her front door and was unlocking it, the
SWAT team rammed the door open and Pena was knocked to the ground. As she
was lying on the floor, Pena felt something strike her foot. She was unsure
whether it was the falling door that hit her or instead whether one of the entering
deputies had stepped on her, but thought someone had stepped on her foot. Pena
tried to stand up to go to her daughter, but a SWAT team member hit her in the
shoulder with a rifle to keep her on the ground.
At any rate, notwithstanding any inconsistencies in Pena’s description of the
entry, she agrees that the deputies “knocked and announced their authority to enter
and conduct a search of the home before entering Plaintiff’s residence.”
As a result of the deputies’ actions, Pena’s foot was fractured and she had to
wear a cast for several weeks. Her shoulder was bruised and required surgery. In
addition, the search damaged Pena’s home. Specifically, the SWAT officers broke
the front and interior doors, damaged the walls, shattered a window in order to
deploy a flash-bang device, and “generally left the house in a sta[te] of disrepair
and disarray.”
4

Case: 16-17635

B.

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 5 of 17

Procedural Background

Pena sued deputies Christopher Marcus, Osvaldo Cruz, Kristopher Lott,
Matthew Butler, Brian Beaulieu, Chris Delotte, Eric Shellenberger, Christopher
Wrzesin, and John Torres in their individual capacities. She alleges that the
deputies used excessive force and unlawfully deprived her of property in violation
of the United States Constitution and that they violated numerous Florida laws.
The district court granted summary judgment to the deputies, finding that they
were entitled to federal qualified immunity and Florida sovereign immunity. Pena
appeals this ruling.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews the denial of summary judgment de novo and uses the

same legal standards as the district court. Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707
F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2013). We grant summary judgment 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We view all facts
and resolve all doubts in favor of the non-moving party “to the extent supportable
by the record.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 n.8 (2007) (emphasis omitted);
Feliciano, 707 F.3d at 1247. An issue is not genuine if it is not supported by
evidence. Baloco v. Drummond Co., Inc., 767 F.3d 1229, 1246 (11th Cir. 2014),
citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986).
5

Case: 16-17635

III.

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 6 of 17

FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS
Pena alleges that the deputies unlawfully deprived her of property and used

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated onto the
states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Pena alleges that the deputies
should not have forcibly entered her home and that the deputies wrongfully caused
property damage through that entry and through other actions during the execution
of the warrant. Second, she alleges that the deputies used excessive force on her
person by injuring her foot as they entered the home and fracturing her shoulder
with a rifle when she tried to move. The deputies argue that they are protected by
federal qualified immunity.
A.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit if they are
“performing discretionary functions” and “their conduct does not violate clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The purpose of
qualified immunity is to protect government employees from the burdens of
litigation. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-26 (1985). It balances the need
to hold the government accountable with the need to shield officers from litigation
distractions. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

6

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 7 of 17

Government employees performing discretionary functions are eligible for
qualified immunity. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. A discretionary function is a jobrelated function that the employee accomplishes through legitimate means.
Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1265–66 (11th Cir. 2004).
The deputies were executing a facially valid search warrant when Pena was
injured. Pena does not disagree that executing a search warrant is within the
deputies’ discretionary functions.
Thus, the burden is on Pena to show that the deputies are not entitled to
qualified immunity. Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d 991, 995 (11th Cir. 2003)
(“Once the government official has established that she was acting within her
discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to show that qualified
immunity is not appropriate”). To meet her burden, Pena must show that (1) the
official violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly
established at the time of the incident. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, 242. A right is
clearly established if an officer had “fair warning” that his conduct was
unconstitutional. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740–41 (2002). There are three
ways for a plaintiff to prove that a right is clearly established: “(1) case law with
indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right, (2) a broad
statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law that clearly
establishes a constitutional right; or (3) conduct so egregious that a constitutional
7

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 8 of 17

right was clearly violated, even in the total absence of case law.” Lewis v. City of
West Palm Beach, 561 F.3d 1288, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
B.

Forcible Entry and Property Damage

Pena alleges that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment when they
forcibly entered her home. She also contends that the deputies unlawfully caused
property damage in conducting the search. We agree with the district court that the
deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.
Pena agrees that the deputies’ entry was authorized and that they knocked
and announced their presence, requesting permission to enter before ramming in
the door. However, she claims that they should not have forcibly entered her
home. Yet, there is no dispute that the deputies received no response from inside
the home after having announced their presence and requesting entry. And Pena
admitted in her deposition that at least 2–3 minutes elapsed between when she first
saw the deputies and when they rammed her door.
Under the Fourth Amendment, police may forcibly enter a residence if there
is an exigency. United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 40 (2003) (“[T]he exigent
need of law enforcement trumps a resident’s interest in avoiding all property
damage.”). Courts determine exigency by conducting a totality of the
circumstances analysis based on the facts that the police knew at the time of the
search. Id. at 39–41; see generally United States v. Collins, 510 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.
8

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 9 of 17

2007). Police must wait a reasonable amount of time before forcibly entering a
home. Banks, 540 U.S. at 39–41. The amount of time that is reasonable depends
on the exigency, not on how long it would take for an individual to open the door.
Id. at 40. Depending on the situation, mere seconds between knocking and
forcibly entering the house can be reasonable. Id. at 38–40 (holding that it was
reasonable for police to wait 15–20 seconds when they were concerned that the
defendant would destroy cocaine); United States v. Crippen, 371 F.3d 842, 846
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that it was reasonable for police to wait 4 seconds when
they believed that the defendant had a high-powered rocket launcher). Courts do
not hold officers to a higher standard when their entry destroys property, but the
need for and extent of property damage is relevant to determining the
reasonableness of the entry. Banks, 540 U.S. at 41; United States v. Ramirez, 523
U.S. 65, 68 (1998).
It was reasonable for the deputies here to conclude that a forcible entry was
necessary. They had obtained a warrant to search for drugs and guns and the
warrant indicated that Daniel Santiago, a documented CRIPS gang member with
an extensive arrest history, was an occupant of the residence. According to the
deputies, they knocked 10 times on the front door, and received no response.
Thereafter, an order was given to make an amplified announcement, and the

9

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 10 of 17

officers twice announced, “Police with a search warrant, open the door now.”
Again, they received no response.
Admittedly, Pena testified that she never heard a knock and did not hear the
particular words uttered by the officer in his announcement, and we assume that to
be true. But she agreed, as an undisputed fact, that the officers had announced
their presence before entering, and she admitted in her deposition that she heard
the officers make some muffled announcement through a megaphone prior to
gaining entry. Clearly they were saying something. And she further testified that
she thought 2–3 minutes had elapsed from the time she saw one of the deputies
outside to the time she walked to the door.
These facts establish an exigent reason for a forcible entry to execute the
search warrant. All the officers knew was that they had a search warrant and had
received no response to their request for entry into a residence that might have
been occupied by a member of the violent CRIPS gang. In hindsight, the deputies
may not have needed to break down the door because Daniel Santiago, the putative
gang member, was not present. Further, according to Pena, she was preparing to
open the door simultaneous with the officers’ entry. But the officers knew neither
of those facts when they made their entry. See Kesinger ex rel. Est. of Kesinger v.
Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1248–49 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The ‘reasonableness’
inquiry . . . must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the
10

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 11 of 17

scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”). In short, we conclude that
the forcible entry was reasonable under the circumstances.
Beyond the broken front door, Pena complains about damage to other
property during the execution of the search. She alleges that she was deprived of
property in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the deputies damaged her
windows, walls, and interior doors. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers have
discretion in executing a search warrant. Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 257
(1979). They may not cause “excessive or unnecessary destruction of property,”
Ramirez, 523 U.S. at 71, but courts recognize that “officers executing search
warrants on occasion must damage property in order to perform their duty.” Dalia,
441 U.S. at 258. See also United States v. Andreu, 715 F.2d 1497, 1499–1501
(11th Cir. 1983). To determine whether officers damaged property in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, courts examine the reasonableness of the officers’ actions.
Ramirez, 523 U.S. at 71–72.
In this case, the property damage occurred as the deputies quickly entered
the house and were attempting to expeditiously ensure that there were no persons
within who could threaten their safety. As discussed above, the deputies believed
that they were entering the home of a gang member who possessed firearms. This
made it reasonable for the deputies to quickly enter and search the house, even
though this unfortunately resulted in some damage to the property. See Banks, 540
11

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 12 of 17

U.S. at 37 (“police in exigent circumstances may damage premises so far as
necessary for a no-knock entrance”); Ramirez, 523 U.S. at 70–72 (finding it
reasonable for officers to break a window to utilize a flash-bang device).
But even if one were to conclude that the deputies acted unreasonably in
making a forceful entry into the house and in causing the damage alleged by Pena,
they would still be entitled to qualified immunity because Pena has failed to
identify clearly established law that proscribes the deputies’ specific conduct. In
short, we agree with the district court that Pena has failed to prove that the deputies
violated her constitutional rights based on their entry into the home and on other
property damage that occurred during the execution of the search warrant.
C.

Excessive Force

Pena also claims that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment by using
excessive force on her as they entered the home. As noted, Pena was standing
behind the front door when the SWAT team forced it open. In the process, Pena
was knocked to the ground and her foot was fractured, either because an entering
deputy stepped on it or because the door hit her foot as it was toppling down. In
addition, Pena claims that when she tried to stand up after the initial entry, a
SWAT team member used his rifle to push her back to the ground and injured her
shoulder.

12

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 13 of 17

Courts apply an objective reasonableness standard to determine whether an
officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). Courts judge reasonableness “from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene” and must keep in mind that
“police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments [ ] in
circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” Id. at 396–97.
Even if the amount of force used was not necessary, the force is constitutional if it
was reasonable. Croom v. Balkwill, 645 F.3d 1240, 1251–53 (11th Cir. 2011)
(“Though we are skeptical that the force alleged was truly necessary under the
circumstances, we cannot find a constitutional violation based on its usage.”).
As to the injury to Pena’s foot, this injury resulted from the breaking down
of the door by the officers to gain entry into the house. Pena’s foot was either
struck by the falling door or by an entering officer who stepped on her foot as he
was hastily coming through the door. There is no evidence that the deputies knew
that Pena was standing behind the door or that they even intended to make contact
with her. As to the force used by a deputy to keep Pena from standing, the district
court noted that the record indicated that Pena was “forcefully poked” with a rifle
only after “she turned her body in an attempt to stand after being told not to move.”
See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981) (“a warrant to search for
contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited
13

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 14 of 17

authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is
conducted”) (footnote omitted); Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98–100 (2005)
(“Inherent in Summers’ authorization to detain an occupant of the place to be
searched is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention.”). Cf.
Croom, 645 F.3d at 1251–53 (although “skeptical that the force alleged was truly
necessary,” holding that officers did not use excessive force during the course of
detaining a sixty-three year old occupant of a home being searched by pushing her
to the ground and holding her there with a foot to her back for ten minutes).
But as with the property damage/forcible entry claim, even if one can
debate, in retrospect, whether the officers acted reasonably in their physical contact
with Pena, Pena has nonetheless not identified any clearly established law that
would put the deputies on notice that their particular conduct constituted excessive
force in violation of Pena’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, we likewise affirm
the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on this claim.
IV.

FLORIDA LAW CLAIMS
Pena further contends that the deputies’ actions violated Florida law. She

states five state law claims: assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Florida
government officials receive sovereign immunity under § 768.28. An officer
cannot be held liable for acts committed in “the scope of her or his employment or
14

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 15 of 17

function” unless he “acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner
exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.” Fla.
Stat. § 768.28. Bad faith is defined as actual malice and willful and wanton
conduct is “worse than gross negligence and more reprehensible and unacceptable
than mere intentional conduct.” Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 835 F.
Supp. 2d 1200, 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citations and quotation omitted).
An officer acts within the scope of his employment if “(a) it is the type of
conduct which the employee is hired to perform, (b) it occurs substantially within
the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed, (c)
the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.” Craft
v. John Sirounis and Sons, Inc., 575 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).
Pena does not contest that the deputies were acting in the scope of their
employment when they executed the search warrant. Thus, they are protected by
Florida sovereign immunity unless their actions constitute bad faith under
§ 768.28. See Kastritis, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1225.
A.

Assault and Battery

In Florida, an assault is “an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury to
another by force, or exertion of force directed toward another under such
circumstances as to create a reasonable fear of imminent peril.” Sullivan v. Atl.
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). A battery is
15

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 16 of 17

“the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to
cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent.” Quilling v.
Price, 894 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005). To determine whether an
officer’s actions are an assault and battery, courts inquire whether the officer’s use
of force was reasonable. City of Miami v. Sanders, 672 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 1996) (applying the reasonableness standard to battery); City of Fort
Pierce v. Cooper, 190 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966) (applying the
reasonableness standard to assault).
The reasonableness inquiry outlined in Section III applies here. As
discussed above, it was reasonable for the deputies to forcibly enter the house,
which action caused them to knock Pena down and hurt her foot, and to prevent
Pena from standing at a time when the deputies had not safeguarded the premises.
Thus, the deputies are not liable for assault and battery.
B.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To make a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff
must prove “(1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; (2) outrageous
conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was
severe.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2007). “Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible
16

Case: 16-17635

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

Page: 17 of 17

bounds of decency.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278–79
(Fla. 1985). For the same reasons discussed above, the deputies’ actions were not
outrageous or extreme. The deputies are thus not liable for intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
C.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligence

By its own terms, § 768.28 protects officers from negligence-based claims.
That is, Florida officers have sovereign immunity unless their actions are “worse
than gross negligence.” Kastritis, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1225 (quotation omitted). It
is thus not possible for the deputies to be held liable for negligent infliction of
emotional distress or negligence. See Sanders, 672 So. 2d at 48 (“it is not possible
to have a cause of action for ‘negligent’ use of excessive force because there is no
such thing as the ‘negligent’ commission of an ‘intentional’ tort.”).
CONCLUSION
We agree with the district court that the deputies are protected by federal
qualified immunity and Florida sovereign immunity. This court therefore
AFFIRMS the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

17