Garcia v. Killingsworth et al.,

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 28, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 10-14848
Non-Argument Calendar
_______________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:08-cv-01258-SLB
INEZ ALFRED GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FLETCHER KILLINGSWORTH,
CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, AL,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
__________________
(April 28, 2011)
Before WILSON, HILL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Inez Alfred Garcia brought this action for damages against Fletcher
Killingsworth and the City of Huntsville, Alabama, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
claiming that the defendants violated his constitutional rights to be free from
unreasonable seizure and excessive force. The district court granted summary1
judgment for defendants on the grounds of the qualified immunity of
Killingsworth. We find no reversible error in this conclusion.
Inez Alfred Garcia was arrested by defendant Fletcher Killingsworth for
public intoxication, which, under Alabama law, is the appearing in a public place
under the influence of alcohol and engaging in boisterous and offensive conduct
that annoys another person in the vicinity. Ala. Code § 3A-11-10. In this case,
Garcia admits that he was at a mixed martial arts event at night with thousands of
other people. He admits that there were fights among the spectators at this event,
that he had five or six beers prior to his arrest, and that upon exiting the event he
walked by Killingsworth, who was in the process of arresting another individual,
and said “That’s brutality.” He also admits that this comment could have been
heard ten to fifteen yards away, by the crowd of other exiting spectators. Finally,
Garcia also asserted several state law claims, but these are not part of this appeal.1
2

-- 2 of 4 --

he admits that Killingsworth could probably smell the alcohol on his breath. He
was then arrested for public intoxication.
Killingsworth is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if he had arguable
probable cause for the arrest. Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332
(11 Cir. 2004). The undisputed facts are that Garcia had been drinking, smelledth
of alcohol, and made a highly inflammatory comment in the presence of a large
crowd late at night. The district court correctly held that, under these
circumstances, Garcia did not establish that no reasonable officer could have
thought there was probable cause to arrest him for public intoxication. See
Vineyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346-47 (11 Cir. 2002) (it is the plaintiff’sth
burden to establish that no arguable cause for the arrest existed). We agree. The
district court correctly concluded that the defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity on Garcia’s unreasonable seizure claim.
Additionally, the district court correctly determined that Killingsworth is
entitled to qualified immunity on Garcia’s excessive force claim. The undisputed
facts are that Killingsworth handcuffed Garcia by grabbing his arm, twisting it
around Garcia’s back and bowed him over. We have previously acknowledged
that this handcuffing technique “is relatively common and ordinarily accepted
non-excessive way to detain an arrestee.”“ Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341,
3

-- 3 of 4 --

1351-53 (11 Cir. 2002). We have also recognized that “the typical arrestth
involves some force and injury.” Id. The district court held that the handcuffing
in this case did not constitute excessive force and we agree.
Accordingly, under the facts as Garcia has alleged them, we conclude that
the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants is due to be
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --