Darrel Thorn v. Melvin McGary
684 F. App'x 430
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 26, 2014, Officer McGary observed Darrel Thorn’s vehicle parked in the roadway on a winding two‑lane street in an area known for drug activity; McGary approached to assist and became suspicious.
- Thorn moved inside the vehicle and attempted to conceal an unlabeled prescription pill bottle containing Xanax; the bottle fell to the ground and Thorn could not produce a valid prescription.
- Thorn was arrested for possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance without a prescription and cited for parking in the roadway; the ticket was later dismissed and the DA declined to prosecute the drug charge.
- Thorn sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and for defamation based on a newspaper report of his arrest; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Thorn failed to file the local‑rule required separate statement of facts and his only proffered evidence (an 11‑sentence affidavit from the passenger, LeBlanc) was struck after discovery issues; the district court deemed defendants’ facts admitted and granted summary judgment.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Thorn was not excused from local rules despite pro se status, there was probable cause for the arrest, officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and the defamation claim failed.
Issues
| Issue | Thorn's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pro se plaintiff may avoid local‑rule summary judgment requirements | Pro se status should relax procedural requirements; district court applied an attorney standard | Local rules apply to all parties; failure to file required factual statement permits deeming moving party’s facts admitted | Local rules properly applied; pro se status did not excuse compliance |
| Whether the district court erred in striking LeBlanc’s affidavit | Affidavit raised genuine issues of fact and should not be stricken | Affidavit was vague, conclusory, and discovery prevented deposition; district court has discretion to strike | Regardless of strike, defendants’ facts were deemed admitted; no reversible error shown |
| Whether officers violated Fourth Amendment / whether qualified immunity applies | Dismissal of ticket and refusal to prosecute show stop/arrest lacked foundation and violated rights | Officers had reasonable basis to stop (vehicle in roadway) and probable cause to arrest (furtive movements, bottle fell, no prescription); thus qualified immunity applies | No Fourth Amendment violation; officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether publication of arrest in newspaper supports defamation claim | Police blotter publication was defamatory and false | Report of arrest was true and privileged when supported by probable cause | Summary judgment proper: plaintiff failed to show falsity or other defamation elements; officers had qualified privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1983) (same; pro se standard)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (discussion of prisoners’ rights; cited for abrogation context)
- Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1984) (recognizing limits on McCrae after Hudson)
- Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1991) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
- Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1992) (no special notice required for pro se litigants on summary judgment burdens)
- Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (motion to strike reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Curtis v. Anthony, 710 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity summary judgment review de novo)
- Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2011) (two‑prong qualified immunity test)
- United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572 (5th Cir.) (community caretaking/stop based on safety concerns)
- Resendiz v. Miller, 203 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 2000) (warrantless arrest lawful when supported by probable cause)
- Kariuki v. Tarango, 709 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2013) (vague or conclusory affidavits insufficient to create genuine issue)
- Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So. 2d 552 (La. 1997) (elements of defamation and qualified privilege for police reports)
- Roche v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 303 So. 2d 888 (La. Ct. App. 1974) (defamation claim defeated where arrest supported by probable cause)
- Rivera v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 349 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2003) (municipal liability requires policymaker/policy showing)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (arguments not briefed are waived)