455 F. App'x 450
5th Cir.2011Background
- Whittington sued four Concordia Parish employees, including Maxwell, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation, plus a Louisiana state malicious prosecution claim.
- District court denied Maxwell’s qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims and denied summary judgment on the state law malicious prosecution claim.
- Whittington alleges Maxwell and Darden orchestrated charges to retaliate against him for his 2003 Sheriff campaign opposition.
- Whittington was arrested on May 20, 2004, and held for over fifty days pending hearings, with bond initially set at $175,000 and later reduced to $80,000.
- A September 2007 hearing led to dismissal of the criminal case with prejudice or to a cause for dismissal; the case was docketed as dismissed without prejudice when no appearance occurred by the Attorney General’s Office.
- Whittington alleged improper ex parte contact by Maxwell with the district attorney and a judge to influence the prosecution; Boothe later recused from the matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whittington states a cognizable §1983 Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution. | Whittington asserts a Fourth Amendment deprivation due to prolonged detention and fabricated charges. | Maxwell argues the claim is a freestanding claim outside §1983 and the district court erred in denying immunity. | Affirm qualified-immunity denial; Fourth Amendment claim plausibly alleged and not strictly freestanding. |
| Whether Maxwell acted unreasonably under clearly established law. | Whittington contends detention over fifty days and fabricated charges violated clearly established rights. | Maxwell argues probable cause and lawful detention; no violation under established law. | District court’s factual disputes preclude summary judgment; nevertheless, no reasonable officer would detain for politics-driven vendetta. |
| Whether the appellate court has pendent jurisdiction to review the state law malicious prosecution claim. | Maxwell seeks review of state-law claim under pendent appellate jurisdiction. | Pendent jurisdiction applies only in rare intertwined contexts. | No pendent appellate jurisdiction; deny review of state-law claim; affirm in part, dismiss in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003) (no freestanding constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution; but related Fourth Amendment effects may arise from initiation of charges)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (probable cause required for detention pending proceedings; pretrial detention implicates Fourth Amendment)
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (two-step qualified immunity analysis; if no constitutional violation, stop; otherwise assess objective reasonableness)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (overruled Saucier sequencing; courts may decide which prong first)
- Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1996) (pendent appellate jurisdiction rare; intertwined issues must be meaningfully reviewable)