Courtland Tatum v. Sheriffs Dept Natchitoches, et ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-31080      Document: 00513044901         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/15/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 15, 2015
    No. 14-31080
    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    COURTLAND TATUM,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    CITY OF NATCHITOCHES; CAREY ETHEREDGE; RONNIE QUICK;
    NATCHITOCHES PARISH DETENTION CENTER; DEE HAWTHORNE,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 1:12-CV-2670
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Courtland Tatum appeals the denial of his Section 1983 claims for
    alleged constitutional violations arising out of his arrest and prosecution for
    practicing law without a license. We AFFIRM.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 14-31080    Document: 00513044901     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/15/2015
    No. 14-31080
    In May 2011, Detectives Carey Etheredge and Ronnie Quick of the
    Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s Office sought a warrant for Tatum’s arrest for
    practicing law without a license. Judge Dee Hawthorne issued the requested
    warrant after considering evidence that Tatum helped a woman prepare
    divorce papers, did not possess a law license, and had a criminal record that
    would preclude him from even obtaining a license were he otherwise qualified.
    Tatum was arrested and held at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center for
    three days. He was charged with practicing law without a license, but the
    charge was later dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
    In October 2012, Tatum brought suit under Section 1983 against the City
    of Natchitoches, the Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Natchitoches
    Parish Detention Center, Detectives Etheredge and Quick, and Judge
    Hawthorne for alleged constitutional violations arising out of his detention and
    prosecution. Judge Hawthorne was never summoned and did not make an
    appearance. The sheriff’s office and detention center moved to dismiss for lack
    of capacity to sue or be sued, and the city and Detectives Etheredge and Quick
    moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions after
    Tatum failed to respond, and also dismissed the claims against Judge
    Hawthorne. Tatum timely appealed.
    We agree with the district court’s conclusions and rationale.        First,
    Tatum did not show good cause for failing to summon Judge Hawthorne. Thus,
    the court properly dismissed the claims against her. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
    Additionally, as the court noted, the claims against Judge Hawthorne relate to
    her judicial acts and are therefore barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity.
    See Stump v. Sparkman, 
    435 U.S. 349
    , 355-56 (1978).
    Second, the court properly dismissed the claims against the sheriff’s
    office and detention center because Tatum failed to allege or otherwise
    2
    Case: 14-31080     Document: 00513044901        Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/15/2015
    No. 14-31080
    establish that they have the capacity to sue or be sued under Louisiana law.
    See FED. R. CIV. P. 17(b); LA. CIV. CODE art. 24.
    Third, Tatum did not establish the requirements for municipal liability,
    namely a policymaker’s actual or constructive knowledge of an official policy
    or custom that was the moving force behind a constitutional violation. See
    Pineda v. City of Houston, 
    291 F.3d 325
    , 328 (5th Cir. 2002). As the city
    demonstrated in its summary judgment motion and supporting affidavits, the
    sheriff’s office is not part of the city, and the city was not involved in or aware
    of Tatum’s arrest or prosecution. Tatum did not respond to the city’s motion
    or adduce any evidence supporting his claims against it. Thus, the court
    properly granted summary judgment for the city. See Hinojosa v. City of
    Terrell, 
    864 F.2d 401
    , 402 (5th Cir. 1989).
    Finally, the court properly granted the detectives’ motion for summary
    judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Under the qualified immunity
    doctrine, officers maintain immunity if probable cause arguably existed for an
    arrest.   Brown v. Lyford, 
    243 F.3d 185
    , 190 (5th Cir. 2001).            Detectives
    Etheredge and Quick demonstrated in their summary judgment motion and
    supporting affidavits that they possessed probable cause to believe that Tatum
    illegally prepared divorce papers for a woman without a law license. Tatum
    did not respond to the motion or adduce evidence. Thus, summary judgment
    in favor of the detectives was appropriate. See 
    Hinojosa, 864 F.2d at 402
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-31080

Judges: Reavley, Dennis, Southwick

Filed Date: 5/15/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024