Edgar Llorente v. Elias Gallup

Case: 17-14452 Date Filed: 07/30/2018 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14452
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-01844-ACC-TBS
EDGAR LLORENTE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JERRY L. DEMINGS
Defendant,
ELIAS GALLUP,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 30, 2018)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-14452 Date Filed: 07/30/2018 Page: 2 of 6
Appellant Edgar Llorente (“Llorente”) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging
false arrest and malicious prosecution claims against Sheriff Jerry L. Demings
(“Sheriff Demings”) and Deputy Elias Gallup (“Deputy Gallup”). Sheriff Demings
filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted, and the case proceeded
against Deputy Gallup. Llorente and Deputy Gallup filed cross motions for
summary judgment, and the district court entered an order granting Deputy
Gallup’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
The district court’s order granting summary judgment based on qualified
immunity is subject to the de novo standard of review. Whittier v. Kobayashi, 581
F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate “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
the evidence and make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
Llorente, as the non-moving party. McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333
F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003).
Deputy Gallup contends that the district court correctly found that he was
entitled to qualified immunity on Llorente’s § 1983 false arrest claim because the
stop and subsequent arrest were justified based upon three traffic violations
committed by Llorente: (1) violation of F.S.A. § 316.074, Obedience to and
2
Case: 17-14452 Date Filed: 07/30/2018 Page: 3 of 6
Required Traffic Control Devices; (2) violation of F.S.A. § 316.151, Required
Position and Method of Turning at Intersections; and (3) violation of F.S.A.
§ 316.193, Driving Under the Influence. After reviewing the record, reading the
parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm in part, reverse
in part and remand. We affirm the district court’s disposition of Llorente’s
malicious prosecution claim, but reverse and remand its order on the false arrest
claim.
First, we note that the district court accepted Deputy Gallup’s assertion that
Llorente’s four or five lane changes while driving violated § 316.074, Obedience
to and Required Traffic Control Devices; however, this statute does not prohibit
such lane changes. There are no allegations that Llorente’s lane changes were
prohibited by solid yellow lane lines or solid double white lane lines, and there are
no allegations that any other official traffic control devices prohibited Llorente’s
maneuvers on his route during the time in question. As such, we conclude that
Llorente’s lane changes do not give rise to arguable reasonable suspicion to detain
him or arguable probable cause to arrest him in violation of § 316.074.
Second, the district court also agreed with Deputy Gallup that Llorente’s left
turn from Edgewater Drive to Lee Road, which Deputy Gallup alleged was made
into a middle lane of Lee Road instead of the nearest available lane, violated
3
Case: 17-14452 Date Filed: 07/30/2018 Page: 4 of 6
§ 316.151, Required Position and Method of Turning at Intersections. However,
this statute only requires that the turn be made from the extreme left hand lane
lawfully available; the statute does not require that the turn be made to the extreme
left hand lane lawfully available. As such, Llorente’s left turn onto Lee Road was
legal under the statute. Thus, we conclude that Deputy Gallup did not have
arguable reasonable suspicion to detain Llorente or arguable probable cause to
arrest Llorente under § 316.151.
Third, we conclude that the district court’s analysis on the false arrest claim
did not focus on information that was available to Deputy Gallup at the time that
he stopped and then arrested Llorente. (R. Doc. 54 p. 23). See Hunter v. Bryant,
502 U.S. 224, 228, 112 S. Ct. 534, 537 (1991) (stating that courts should examine
the question of qualified immunity by asking whether the official acted reasonably
under the circumstances at the time the events in question were occurring, not
some time period later). Instead of meaningfully examining the conflicting
testimony regarding the circumstances leading up to the traffic stop and arrest to
determine whether Deputy Gallup had arguable probable suspicion to stop Llorente
and arguable probable cause to arrest him for DUI, the district court relied on
evidence obtained after Llorente was arrested and taken to the DUI Center. This
was error. Our review of the record persuades us that there is a significant dispute
4
Case: 17-14452 Date Filed: 07/30/2018 Page: 5 of 6
over Llorente’s behavior during the stop and his performance on the field sobriety
tests. Deputy Gallup claims that Llorente failed various sobriety tests, but Llorente
asserts that he experienced no problems at all with the tests. This is a classic
example of a genuine issue of disputed material fact.
In Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1234–35 (11th Cir. 2004), we
held that when there are multiple reasonable determinations of the facts, the
existence of probable cause in a § 1983 action presents a jury question. Given the
facts in the light most favorable to Llorente, we conclude that the district court
improperly granted summary judgment to Deputy Gallup on Llorente’s false arrest
claim. Deputy Gallup is not entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim
at the summary judgment stage because, taking the facts in the light most favorable
to Llorente, no reasonable police officer could have believed that Llorente’s
conduct at the time of the stop constituted driving under the influence.
Concerning the malicious prosecution claim, we agree with the district
court’s analysis and conclude that even considering the evidence in the light most
favorable to Llorente, no genuine issues of material fact exist to support the
elements of the common law tort of malicious prosecution. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the malicious prosecution
claim, but reverse and remand as to the false arrest claim.
5
Case: 17-14452 Date Filed: 07/30/2018 Page: 6 of 6
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
6