USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-10819
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CHARLES LAWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
SGT. SCHUTHIESS,
Martin C.I.,
OFFICER HARVEY,
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 2 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10819
Martin C.I.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-14249-RLR
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Lawn, a Florida prisoner, appeals the summary
judgment in favor of two correctional officers, Sergeant Schultheiss
and Officer Harvey, and against Lawn’s complaint that they used
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment when re-
straining Lawn while he was having a seizure.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The district court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified
immunity because the undisputed record established that the offic-
ers, acting within their discretionary authority, restrained Lawn be-
cause they perceived he was under the influence of drugs and that
the force they used was not applied maliciously or sadistically to
cause harm. We affirm.
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 3 of 9
21-10819 Opinion of the Court 3
I. BACKGROUND
For decades, Lawn has experienced seizures due to a trau-
matic brain injury. On July 9, 2015, Lawn was in his cell when he
began to experience one of these seizures and informed his cell-
mate, who called for help. When Sergeant Schultheiss and Officer
Harvey arrived with other prison and medical staff, Lawn was con-
vulsing on the floor. Lawn was transported to the prison medical
unit, where his medical record listed “drug abuse” as the chief com-
plaint and noted that Lawn appeared confused and delirious, his
pupils were dilated, and he was “physically combative.” An x-ray
revealed that Lawn’s right shoulder was dislocated and his right
arm was fractured.
Lawn later filed a complaint against Sergeant “Schuthiess”
and Officer Harvey. Lawn alleged that, instead of assisting him, the
officers “began to kick, stomp, punch and curse him” before trans-
porting him to the medical unit, where the officers continued to
beat and curse him. Lawn alleged that the officers used excessive
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
In his first deposition, Lawn denied that the officers ever
punched or kicked him. Lawn testified that after he began seizing
and “flopping around like a fish,” the officers “jumped” on him and
held him down using their arms to immobilize his neck. Lawn re-
called hearing the officers ask him if he was high and what he had
been smoking. Lawn believed that the officers “thought [he] was
on drugs at the time,” and “jumped down on [him], instead, think-
ing that [he] was trying to be [] unruly, and that [he] was high.”
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 4 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10819
Lawn stated that the officers rolled him onto his stomach, hand-
cuffed him, and placed him on a gurney. When he woke up in the
medical unit, the captain told Lawn that “Schultheiss and the other
officer had to jump down on you . . . because they thought you
were high.” When Lawn explained to the captain that he was not
on drugs but had experienced a seizure, the captain instructed that
Lawn be uncuffed.
Two years later, after the district court denied Sergeant
Schultheiss’s motion for summary judgment, Lawn was deposed
again. Lawn maintained his previous assertions and added that the
drug “K2” was “everywhere.” Lawn had seen officers try to control
inmates who were high on K2 by trying to “talk the [inmate]
down,” but if that did not work, the officers had “to grab them,”
cuff them, and put them on a gurney. During his seizure, Lawn
recalled hearing the officers asking what he “was on” and hearing
“some of the other inmates telling them that [he] was taking a sei-
zure.” Lawn acknowledged that if he had been high and unable
control himself, the proper way to restrain him would be to take
him down. Lawn explained that he ordinarily wore a pass in his left
pocket that stated “SZ precautions,” meaning that he could not be
around certain items and chemicals due to his seizures. Lawn never
had any problems with Sergeant Schultheiss or Officer Harvey be-
fore the incident.
Officer Harvey moved for summary judgment, and Ser-
geant Schultheiss moved for reconsideration because of the addi-
tional discovery that had occurred since he filed his motion for
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 5 of 9
21-10819 Opinion of the Court 5
summary judgment two years earlier. The officers submitted dec-
larations averring they had no independent recollection of the inci-
dent and never used excessive force on Lawn. Both officers de-
scribed their encounters with inmates who had ingested K2, which
involved screaming, twitching, shaking, and fighting. When the of-
ficers encountered an inmate who appeared to be under the influ-
ence of drugs, they would try to calm the inmate down. But if the
inmate did not respond to commands or was combative, the offic-
ers had to secure the inmate with handcuffs so that medical staff
could respond safely. Inmates would sometimes misstate what was
happening or lie to create a diversion, so correctional officers could
never be certain about what was happening.
The district court granted the officers summary judgment.
The district court ruled that there was no evidence that the officers
used force against Lawn maliciously and sadistically for the pur-
pose of causing him harm. Instead, the district court ruled, the ev-
idence established that the officers used force to gain control of
Lawn while he was experiencing what appeared to be a drug high
so he could be transported to the medical unit. The district court
further ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity
because they were acting within their discretionary authority while
supervising inmates and maintaining safety and security.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a summary judgment. See Underwood
v. City of Bessemer,
11 F.4th 1317, 1327 (11th Cir. 2021). And “[w]e
review de novo whether . . . officers are entitled to immunity.”
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 6 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10819
Black v. Wigington,
811 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir. 2016). We re-
solve any issues of material fact in Lawn’s favor and then address
the legal question of whether the officers are entitled to qualified
immunity using that version of the facts. See Penley v. Eslinger,
605 F.3d 843, 848-49 (11th Cir. 2010).
III. DISCUSSION
Lawn argues that the officers violated the Eighth Amend-
ment by using excessive force against him. Lawn contends that the
officers acted maliciously and sadistically when they jumped on
him and beat him for no reason after other inmates told the officers
that Lawn was not on drugs. We disagree.
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, if the officers es-
tablish that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary
authority when the alleged excessive force occurred, Lawn must
prove both that a constitutional violation occurred and that the
constitutional right violated was clearly established. Williams v.
Aguirre,
965 F.3d 1147, 1156 (11th Cir. 2020). And “[f]or claims of
excessive force in violation of the Eighth . . . Amendment[], . . . a
plaintiff can overcome a defense of qualified immunity by showing
only the first prong.” Fennell v. Gilstrap,
559 F.3d 1212, 1216-17
(11th Cir. 2009); see Patel v. Lanier Cnty.,
969 F.3d 1173, 1186 (11th
Cir. 2020) (holding that the Fennell “exception continues to apply
to Eighth Amendment claims”).
Because Lawn did not dispute that the officers were acting
within their discretionary authority until his reply brief, that issue
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 7 of 9
21-10819 Opinion of the Court 7
is not properly before us. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739
F.3d 678, 681, 683 (11th Cir. 2014). This appeal turns on whether
Lawn proved that the officers are not entitled to qualified immun-
ity. See Williams, 965 F.3d at 1156-57. He has not.
The “core judicial inquiry” in excessive force cases, under
the Eighth Amendment, is “not whether a certain quantum of in-
jury was sustained, but rather whether force was applied in a
good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously
and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy,
559 U.S. 34, 37
(2010) (quotation marks omitted). To determine whether the force
was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, we consider
the need for the application of force, the relationship between the
need and the amount of force that was used, the extent of the injury
inflicted upon the prisoner, the extent of the threat to the safety of
staff and inmates, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a
forceful response. Cockrell v. Sparks,
510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.
2007). When considering these factors, “we must also give a wide
range of deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline
and security, including when considering decisions made at the
scene of a disturbance.” Sears v. Roberts,
922 F.3d 1199, 1205 (11th
Cir. 2019).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lawn,
no reasonable jury could find that the force used was “not applied
in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline” but instead
applied “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins,
559
U.S. at 37. Lawn’s testimony alone is sufficient to prove that the
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 8 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10819
officers’ actions of jumping on him, restraining him, and handcuff-
ing him was a result of their honest but mistaken belief that he was
convulsing and being “unruly” due to a drug high. And the amount
of force appeared to be reasonably necessary as Lawn testified that
he was “flopping around like a fish.” It is also undisputed that the
officers’ reason for restraining and cuffing Lawn was to transport
him for medical treatment. See Cockrell,
510 F.3d at 1312.
The undisputed evidence also establishes that, from the of-
ficers’ perspective and their experience with inmates’ rampant drug
use, Lawn posed a security threat and needed to be restrained. Alt-
hough the officers reported no recollection of the incident and
Lawn testified that he had blacked out for parts of it, his medical
records reflected that he was confused, delirious, and “physically
combative.” And our conclusion is unaffected by whether the of-
ficers were told, as Lawn alleged they were, that he was experienc-
ing a seizure and not a drug high. Maintaining “safety and order at
[corrections facilities] requires the expertise of correctional offi-
cials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable so-
lutions to the problems they face.” Ireland v. Prummell,
53 F.4th
1274, 1299 (11th Cir. 2022) (alteration in original).
Lawn argues that the officers should have tempered the
amount of force used. But the infliction of pain “does not amount
to cruel and unusual punishment simply because it may appear in
retrospect that the degree of force authorized or applied for secu-
rity purposes was unreasonable, and hence unnecessary in the strict
sense.” Whitley v. Albers,
475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Because the
USCA11 Case: 21-10819 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 Page: 9 of 9
21-10819 Opinion of the Court 9
evidence, construed in Lawn’s favor, does not establish that the of-
ficers committed a constitutional violation, the district court did
not err in granting them qualified immunity.
Lawn argues too that the district court erred in allowing Ser-
geant Schultheiss to file a successive motion for summary judg-
ment, but we discern no error. Although Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
cedure 56 is silent regarding whether a party may file a successive
motion for summary judgment, we have recognized that a succes-
sive motion for summary judgment may be permitted when good
cause exists, such as when discovery has been extended. Fernandez
v. Bankers Nat. Life Ins. Co.,
906 F.2d 559, 569 (11th Cir. 1990).
Because Lawn’s allegations against the two officers were identical
and the factual record had been further developed, the district
court identified good cause to permit Sergeant Schultheiss to file a
second motion for summary judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Sergeant
Schultheiss and Officer Harvey.
