Childers v. Choate
Childers v. Choate
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40779 Summary Calendar
MICHAEL EARL CHILDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARY CHOATE, Sheriff, Individually and in her official capacity as Sheriff of Bowie County, Texas; BOWIE COUNTY, TX; JAMES PRINCE, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of Bowie County, Texas; LANCE HALL, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of Bowie County, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:95-CV-149 ------------------------------------------------------- April 5, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Earl Childers appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the
defendants Mary Choate, James Prince, and Bowie County, Texas. On appeal, he asserts that the
district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Prince on his claims of false arrest by Prince
because there was no probable cause to arrest Childers for any of the nine charges eventually lodged
against him. He has revealed no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of probable
cause as to at least some of the charges. Because there existed probable cause to arrest Childers on
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. some of the charges, his claims of false arrest fail. See Wells v. Bonner,
45 F.3d 90, 95(5th Cir.
1995).
Childers maintains that even if probable cause exists to support some of the charges, Prince
is not entitled to qualified immunity because the addition of the charges for which he did not have
probable cause to arrest Childers led to the imposition of a bond that was higher than Childers could
afford. As a result, Childers could not obtain immediate release from jail and was left in jail for two
weeks until the bond was lowered. Childers has failed to show that a clearly established constitutional
right to affordable bail exists. Moreover, Childers has failed to show that Prince’s actions in filing
charges against Childers were the direct cause in the setting of the bond, a discretionary action by a
magistrate judge. See TEX. CRIM. P. CODE ANN. art. 7.06 (Vernon 2000).
Childers maintains that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of
Bowie County and Choate because Prince admitted that he had been following county policies when
he arrested Childers. To establish municipal liability under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that an official municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation. Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
436 U.S. 658, 690-91(1978). As explained above, Childers has failed to show
a constitutional violation. Moreover, Prince’s generic statement about following county policy is
insufficient to “specifically identify” the policy that resulted in the violation of Childers’s rights.
See Piotrowski v. City of Houston,
237 F.3d 567,
2001 WL 6712 at *7(5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2001, No.
98-21032). The district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants is AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished