Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12193
5th Cir.2015Background
- Bosarge sues Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and two agents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for false identification and six months’ detention.
- District court denied the defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on immunity grounds.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reverses, holding the district court erred in denying Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings.
- Bosarge alleges the agents misidentified him as a drug-deal participant based on wiretaps and other evidence, leading to indictment and detention.
- He asserts state-law tort claims and constitutional claims arising from false arrest/detention; the district court stayed discovery and required particularized Rule 7 reply.
- The court addresses whether pleadings, affidavits attached to motions, and MTCA discretionary-function immunity support dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bosarge states a Fourth Amendment claim for false identification. | Bosarge claims intentional or reckless misidentification by the agents. | Affidavits show reasonable identification and no recklessness; misidentification not proven. | No Fourth Amendment violation; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether the agents are entitled to qualified immunity on federal claims. | Amended complaint plausibly alleges reckless/malicious misidentification. | The allegations are conclusory and not plausibly reckless or knowing; discovery unnecessary. | Qualified immunity applies; federal claims dismissed. |
| Whether the MTCA discretionary-function immunity bars state-law claims. | Discretionary-function immunity should not bar state-law claims for false arrest/detention. | Investigative decisions are discretionary; immunity applies absent statute/regulation losing discretion. | Discretionary-function immunity protects the defendants; MTCA immunity bars state-law claims. |
| Whether the district court properly treated the motion as a 12(c) matter given affidavits. | Affidavits incorporated into amended complaint should be evaluated; pleadings should prevail. | Affidavits are outside pleadings and should be treated as summary judgment material if considered. | Affidavits may aid interpretation but do not override pleadings; grant of 12(c) appropriate. |
| Whether Bosarge had opportunity to plead best case before dismissal. | Bosarge had multiple opportunities to plead his best case. | Plaintiff failed to plead plausible facts; discovery unnecessary. | Dismissal proper; Bosarge’s federal claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard for sufficiency of complaint)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (standard for qualified-immunity inquiry)
- Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003) (no freestanding right to be free from malicious prosecution; Fourth Amendment governs pretrial detentions when applicable)
- Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2009) (probable cause standard and qualified immunity framework in arrests/detentions)
- McAllister v. Desoto Cnty., 470 F. App’x 313 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses reasonable mistaken identities and Fourth Amendment limits)