53 F.4th 854
5th Cir.2022Background:
- Rene and Julia Foley Bey (self-identified Moorish Americans) tried to enter the Caddo Parish Courthouse but refused to pass through security screening and refused officers' orders to leave.
- Officers warned plaintiffs they would be arrested if they did not leave; plaintiffs remained and were arrested under La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63.3 (remaining after being forbidden).
- Plaintiffs allege officers removed and searched their religious headwear (fez and turban) during booking and that they suffered mistreatment in custody; charges were later dismissed.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law; district court granted summary judgment for the arresting officers and sheriff based on qualified immunity and dismissed other defendants; plaintiffs moved to recuse the magistrate judge (denied).
- Plaintiffs appealed pro se; the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment and denial of recusal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / probable cause and qualified immunity | Foley Beys: arrest lacked probable cause; officers violated Fourth Amendment | Officers: had at least arguable probable cause under La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63.3 for remaining after being forbidden; qualified immunity applies | Affirmed — at least arguable probable cause existed; officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Search of religious headwear (search-incident-to-arrest) | Removal/search of fez and turban violated religious rights and Fourth Amendment | Officers: search incident to arrest is reasonable; no precedent clearly forbids searching religious headwear | Affirmed — search-incident-to-arrest applies; no clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity |
| Recusal of magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455 | Plaintiffs: magistrate had ties to defendants’ counsel (law school/clerkship) warranting recusal | Defendants/district court: ties were remote and insufficient to show bias or require recusal | Affirmed — denial of recusal not an abuse of discretion |
| State-law claims and sheriff liability | Plaintiffs: state-law false arrest and processing claims; sheriff can be liable | Defendants: state-law claims fail; sheriff only potentially vicariously liable; processing claims involve dismissed actors | Affirmed — district court correctly entered judgment for defendants; plaintiffs didn’t add proper defendants via discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. City of Stafford, 848 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2017) (qualified-immunity two-step and objective-reasonableness analysis)
- Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2009) (probable-cause requirements for searches and seizures)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to arrest doctrine)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (clearly-established-law prong of qualified immunity)
- Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff’s burden to rebut qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Mendenhall v. Riser, 213 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2000) (arguable-probable-cause/qualified immunity discussion)
- In re United States (Franco), 158 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998) (remote past associations with counsel insufficient for recusal under § 455)
- United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2003) (treaty argument does not permit ignoring domestic laws)