Joseph v. Bd Cmsnr New Orleans ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30297
Summary Calendar
IDA JOSEPH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
PORT OF NEW ORLEANS; ET AL,
Defendants
SHANE J. STUNTZ, Corporal;
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Criminal
Sheriff of the Parish of
Orleans; EMILE RILEY, Dr.
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1622
--------------------
December 27, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ida Joseph has been substituted as appellant in the appeal
of her son George Joseph, now deceased. She argues that the
district court erred in determining that New Orleans Harbor
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-30297
-2-
Police Officer Corporal Shane Stuntz was entitled to qualified
immunity for the arrest of George Joseph and that the court also
erred in its determination that the claims against Orleans Parish
Sheriff Charles C. Foti, Jr., prison official Dr. Emile Riley,
and other prison employees had prescribed.
Specifically, Ida Joseph argues that Stuntz was unreasonable
when he arrested George Joseph, a paraplegic, for possession of a
stolen vehicle and that Stuntz could be held liable for the
severe bed sores George Joseph sustained while incarcerated for
five months following a subsequent arrest for not appearing for
his arraignment. Ida Joseph also argues that the claims against
Sheriff Foti, Dr. Riley and the prison employees had not
prescribed because 1) Stuntz was a joint tortfeasor and the
prescription period for the claims against Foti, Riley and the
prison employees was interrupted by the timely claim against
Stuntz, 2) the filing date of the amended complaint adding Foti,
Riley and the prison employees related back to the filing date of
the original complaint, and 3) the doctrine of contra non
valentum agere nulla currit praescriptio applied.
This Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and
determines under the same standard as the district court whether
the record as a whole shows that there are no genuine issues as
to any material fact and whether the defendants are entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. Guillory v. Domtar Indus., 95 F.3d
1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A
No. 02-30297
-3-
state or local officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a
claim of wrongful arrest unless the officer lacked probable
cause. Eugene v. Alief Ind. School Dist., 65 F.3d 1299, 1305
(5th Cir. 1995). Whether the officer had probable cause depends
on whether, at the time of the arrest, the facts and
circumstances within his knowledge were sufficient to warrant a
prudent man in believing that the individual arrested had
committed or was committing an offense. Piazza v. Mayne, 217
F.3d 239, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2000).
Our review of the record reveals that Stuntz was not
unreasonable in arresting George Joseph for possession of a
stolen vehicle under LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:69 (West 1997), given
that Joseph had ridden as a passenger in the stolen vehicle, the
steering column had been broken, and there was a screwdriver on
the floor of the vehicle. See State v. McCadney, 761 So. 2d 579,
582-84 (La. Ct. App. 2000); State v. Wilson, 544 So. 2d 1300,
1302 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
The district court also did not err in determining that the
claims against Sheriff Foti, Dr. Riley and the other prison
employees had prescribed. See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315,
319 (5th Cir. 1998); Dumas v. State, 828 So. 2d 530, 538 (La.
2002); Gioustover v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 561 So. 2d 961,
964 (La. Ct. App. 1990); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c).
AFFIRMED.