George Russell v. Wesley Altom, 546 F. App'x 432

After Hurricane Ike, Nirow (a contractor for Entergy) trimmed trees; Russell confronted the crew at his property and complained about location and method of trimming.
Entergy employee Jason Riddle directed the crew to continue trimming on Russell’s property; Russell refused to leave; Officers Ron Cleere and Wesley Altom responded; Cleere left after initial contact.
Altom consulted the county DA, David Weeks, about possible violations of an emergency management order; no immediate arrest occurred.
The next day Russell photographed the crew; Cleere arrested Russell for violating the emergency management order; Altom again consulted Weeks, who sought charging advice from the Texas AG; a grand jury later indicted Russell on multiple felony counts, including under two statutes, and the indictment was later dismissed.
Russell sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims) and state tort claims (trespass, negligence); district court dismissed most federal claims, granted qualified-immunity summary judgment to Altom on First and Fourth Amendment claims (relying on grand jury indictment), dismissed due-process claims, dismissed negligence and trespass claims against Riddle and Entergy, and remanded trespass against Nirow to state court.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russell pleaded trespass and negligence against Riddle/Entergy	Riddle/Entergy directed Nirow to trim on Russell’s land, causing trespass and negligent trimming	No allegation that Riddle/Entergy intended or controlled entry or trimming method by subcontractor	Dismissal affirmed: allegations insufficient to show intent or control to impose trespass or negligence liability
Whether Altom violated First Amendment (retaliatory arrest)	Arrest was retaliation for Russell’s protected speech (photographing/complaining)	Probable cause existed for arrest; indictment breaks causal chain for retaliatory-arrest claim	Affirmed for Altom: probable cause (grand jury indictment) defeats First Amendment claim
Whether Altom violated Fourth Amendment (false arrest)	Arrest lacked probable cause	Grand jury indictment establishes probable cause; no evidence Altom tainted the grand jury	Affirmed: indictment and absence of taint establish probable cause; Fourth Amendment claim fails
Whether grand jury was tainted by Altom/DA conduct	DA acted as Altom’s agent, presented improper statutes, and omitted exculpatory facts	No evidence Altom controlled DA; prosecutor’s charging choices and presentation to grand jury do not by themselves taint indictment	Affirmed: no showing of taint or withheld facts to vitiate grand jury decision

Sullivan v. Leor Energy, LLC, 600 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review standard)
Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment de novo review and standards)
Mesa v. Prejean, 543 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2008) (probable cause defeats retaliatory-arrest claims)
Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004) (unlawful arrest requires lack of probable cause)
Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (grand jury/indictment sufficient to establish probable cause)
Cuadra v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808 (5th Cir. 2010) (independent intermediary breaks chain for false-arrest liability)
Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir. 1988) (grand-jury taint exception when intermediary’s deliberations are corrupted)
Price v. Roark, 256 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2001) (probable cause inquiry focuses on validity of arrest, not each charge)
Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90 (5th Cir. 1995) (if any charged offense has probable cause, arrest is lawful)
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (grand jury’s role and prosecutor’s discretion in presenting evidence)