PAULA REDO, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY SYLVESTRI AND C.S. HOLDING, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Paula Redo appealed a summary judgment grant of qualified immunity to police officers she sued for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appellate court reversed, holding that because the facts of the arrest were disputed—particularly whether Redo resisted and was beaten while restrained—the qualified immunity determination could not be made as a matter of law and required a factual determination by a jury.
Where facts upon which qualified immunity hinges are in dispute, those facts must be determined by a finder of fact rather than resolved at summary judgment. Because beating a restrained, non-resisting suspect violates clearly established constitutional law, if Redo proves her allegations, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.
[1] Where the facts upon which the determination of qualified immunity hinges are in dispute, those facts require a determination by a finder of fact.
[2] The use of excessive force against a restrained suspect who is not resisting is a violation of clearly established constitutional law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where the facts upon which the determination of qualified immunity hinges are in dispute, then those facts require a determination by a finder of fact.”
Establishes the legal principle that qualified immunity cannot be determined at summary judgment when material facts are disputed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaula Redo was arrested by police officers. The disputed facts included whether Redo resisted arrest and whether she was beaten while lying on her sto…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Graham V. Connor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Paula Redo’s third amended complaint contains a claim for civil damages against appellee police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force in arresting her. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1871, 104 L.Ed.2d 443(1989). The trial court granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. The facts surrounding the arrest are in dispute; the vérsion most favorable to Redo is that she did not resist and that she was beaten while lying on her stomach and being restrained by handcuffs and shackles.
Where the facts upon which the determination of qualified immunity hinges are in dispute, then those facts require a determination by a finder of fact. Brescher v. Pirez, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D210, — So. 2d -[1997 WL 11857] (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 15, 1997). Beating a restrained suspect who is not resisting is obviously unlawful and violative of a suspect’s constitutional rights. E.g., Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F. 2d 1053 (10th Cir.1993)(fact issues precluded officers’ summary judgment on ground of qualified immunity where plaintiffs deposition stated that officers beat him with flashlight when his hands were handcuffed behind his back). If Redo proves her allegations, then the officers are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, since their conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); City of Hialeah v. Fernandez, 661 So. 2d 335, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The summary final judgment in favor of appellees is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. Dowling, 750 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…not establish malice on the part of the officer. See id. at 132. The record in Hannula contrasts with Dowling’s claims in this case. Dowling’s version of the facts, if proven, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Arresting a person without even arguable probable cause, handcuffing him in a manner that injures him after being made aware of his physical condition, and pulling him out of a police car and beating him, constitute a civil righ…
-
Morton L. Wald v. City OF Margate, 756 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ed, there would have been no basis at all for his arrest. Under those circumstances Officer Edstrand would not be “entitled to the defense of qualified immunity since [his] conduct violated clearly established constitutional law.” Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So. 2d 731, 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) and City of Hialeah v. Fernandez, 661 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). We therefore reverse. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Acevedo v. del Toro, 857 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…en those facts may require a jury determination.” Brescher v. Pirez, 696 So. 2d 370, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Qualified immunity cases are no different from other civil cases in which there are genuine issues of material fact. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So. 2d 731 (Fla. [*1006] 4th DCA 1997). The officers, therefore, are not entitled to summary judgment based on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity against personal liability. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989)
- Bunis v. N. BAY Vill. Jewish Ctr., Inc., 661 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Brescher v. Pirez, 696 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Butler v. The City OF Norman, 992 F.2d 1053 (10th Cir. 1993)