Whether the federal court denied effect to the immunity provision of the state statute

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: I. Whether the federal court denied effect to the immunity provision of the state statute when it concluded that the arrest of Mr. Davis was objectively reasonable, even in light of Florida's “Justifiable Use of Force” Statute or so-called "Stand Your Ground" law, Fla. Stat. §§ 776.012, 776.032, and that actual probable cause to arrest existed although the arresting officers had no specific evidence or witness statement that the force Mr. Davis used against his son was in fact unlawful, based on the totality of circumstances known to the officers at the scene of the arrest? Il. Whether the decision of the Eleventh Circuit to require that a self-defense claim be “conclusively established” by the accused at the time of arrest in order to avoid an arrest, rather than the express prohibition against arrests in Section 776.032(2) Fla. Stat. (2010) “unless [law enforcement] determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful,” is an unconstitutional change of state law by a federal court? Til. Whether the Eleventh Circuit and the District Court should have honored the Plaintiff's request and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court of whether Section 776.032(2) of the Florida Statutes (2011) requires specific evidence of “probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful” as a condition to arrest? i IV. Whether the Eleventh Circuit, as well as the district court, failed to adhere to the axiom that in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) Fed. R. Civ. P., that the facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the complainant?" V. Whether the district court erred in refusing Mr. Davis’ request for a jury instruction that Police Chief Manley, as final policy maker for the City of Apopka, created a custom or practice of illegally entering residences before warrants were obtained or present at the residence, where former, retired Apopka Police Captain, David Call testified at trial that doing so was “the culture of the Apopka Police Department,” Police Chief Manley was “aware of that” practice, and that he observed Chief Maley himself enter the Davis home without a warrant while officers of the Apopka Police Department were searching it? VI. Whether, to be held liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983, Police Chief Manley was required to have known of the absence of a warrant, when he directly participated in, adopted, or ratified the unlawful search of Mr. Davis’ home without a warrant constituting an official policy of the City of Apopka? ii LIST OF ALL