Bolling v. Hood, 1:10-cv-00189

Bolling signed a Kane home repair contract as a witness; Frisbee’s driver’s license prevented opening a new account for payment.
Kane filed a consumer protection complaint; Investigator Allen concluded Bolling, Revel, and Frisbee were involved and charged them with home repair fraud and contracting without a license.
Bolling was arrested in 2007; Revel, Frisbee, and Bolling were indicted; Revel implicated Bolling and Frisbee in misusing Kane’s money.
Frisbee pled; Bolling was left with a pending charge; the misdemeanor charges against Revel and Bolling were dismissed as witnesses.
Bolling sued Hood and Allen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related claims, seeking damages and injunctive relief; defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court granted summary judgment, dismissing Bolling’s claims with prejudice and addressing official-capacity, Eleventh Amendment, and state-law immunity defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for arrest	Allen lacked probable cause to arrest Bolling.	There was probable cause based on contract involvement and money handling.	Probable cause existed; Allen entitled to qualified immunity.
Equal protection	Bolling was treated differently from similarly situated persons.	No evidence of discriminatory treatment; claim fails.	Equal protection claim dismissed.
Substantive and procedural due process	Prosecution without probable cause violated due process.	Fourth Amendment analysis governs these claims; due process claims fail.	Claims dismissed; analyzed under Fourth Amendment.
Section 1985/1986	Defendants conspired to arrest and prosecute Bolling.	No discriminatory animus; not a federal officer; claims fail.	Claims under §1985 and §1986 dismissed.
Eleventh Amendment and official capacity/State-law claims	State officials liable; seek injunctive relief and damages.	Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity §1983 and state-law claims; Young exception not applicable.	Dismissed; official-capacity and state-law claims barred; injunction denied.

Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003) (burden-shifting immunity framework at summary judgment)
Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe Cnty., Tex., 591 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2009) (prosecutorial immunity scope and investigation vs. advocacy distinction)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (prosecutorial immunity limits to advocacy, not investigation)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1991) (immunity extends to judicial-phase activities)
United States v. McCowan, 469 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2006) (probable cause standard in arrest decisions)
Hale v. Fish, 899 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1990) (explanation of probable cause and omissions in affidavits)
Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1994) (independent intermediary breaks causal chain in false-arrest cases)
Mendenhall v. Riser, 213 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2000) (practical common-sense approach to probable cause)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1994) (prosecution without probable cause analyzed under Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection framework)
Jones v. City of Jackson, 203 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 2000) (Fifth Circuit on Fifth Amendment applicability)
Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1985) (Eleventh Amendment remedial limitations and Young exception)