Jones v. Pillow, et al
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 04-11447 Summary Calendar
F I L E D
June 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
BOBBY CHARLES JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAY PILLOW; et al., Defendants, JAY PILLOW; DAMON JAMES; ROBERT NELSON; CITY OF WAXAHACHIE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:02-CV-1825) Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* For this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of
Waxahachie, Texas, and three of its police officers, arising from Bobby Charles Jones' arrest on a domestic abuse charge, Jones contests the summary judgment awarded defendants on his several claims discussed below, including for excessive force. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Jones asserts that, by failing to view the evidence in the requisite light most favorable to him, the summary judgment
standard was incorrectly applied in determining probable cause existed for: the warrantless entry; the search of his home; and The district court concluded that his Jones does not dispute
his warrantless arrest.
entry and search claims were time-barred. that ruling.
See Summers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 861, 881 n.12 (5th For the refutes
Cir. 2005) (claims not briefed on appeal are abandoned). arrest claim, Jones fails to cite any evidence that
defendants' probable-cause evidence. F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003). issue of material fact.
See Malacara v. Garber, 353
Thus, he has not shown a genuine
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986); United States v. Carrillo-Morales, 27 F.3d 1054, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1178 (1995). Next Jones asserts the defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the entry, search, and arrest claims. Because Jones abandoned the warrantless entry and search claims, we need not address whether the officers were entitled to immunity for them. See Than v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. at Houston, 188 F.3d
633, 635 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1160 (2000). Likewise, we need not consider whether the officers have qualified immunity for the arrest claim because Jones has failed to show summary judgment was improper on the merits of that claim. Id.
Jones also claims the City is liable because the defendant officers were ignorant of basic Fourth Amendment principles, He
proving the City failed to adequately train and supervise them.
does not present evidence concerning the substance of the training or supervision. As discussed supra and infra, he fails to show an Furthermore, he offers no
underlying constitutional violation.
evidence that the City's official policy makers were actually or constructively aware of a policy against adequately training and supervising, such that they were deliberately indifferent towards the constitutional rights of persons who came into contact with the police. Accordingly, Jones has failed to establish a genuine issue of fact material to his claim for municipal liability. See
Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532-33 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Michaels v. Avitech, Inc., 202 F.3d 746, 754-55 (5th Cir.)(conclusory allegations and a mere scintilla of evidence are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 (2000). Finally, Jones claims the district court erred in determining that the statute of limitations on his excessive-force claim ran from date of his injury, and that his claim was time barred as a result. acquitted. He maintains the claim did not accrue until he was This contention was rejected in Price v. City of San
Antonio, Tex., 431 F.3d 890, 892, 894 n.8 (5th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?