Warren v. State of Mississippi et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 6 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 3/21/12. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALEX WARREN

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 1:12CV26-M-S

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Memorandum Opinion
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Alex Warren, who
challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that Warren was incarcerated when he filed this
suit. Warren claims that he was falsely imprisoned on the charge of sale of cocaine. He argues
that, though the transactions was recorded on audio and video, he was not the seller on the
recording. Warren states in his complaint that the charge is still pending. Warren seeks
dismissal of the charges against him. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
False Imprisonment
To meet the elements of false imprisonment under Mississippi law, Warren must show
that (1) he was detained, and (2) the detention was unlawful. Powell v. Moore, 174 So.2d 352
(Miss. 1965). Though Warren has alleged sufficient facts to establish the first element
(detention), he has not alleged the second element (the unlawfulness of the detention). In
Mississippi, “detention is not synonymous with arrest. It must be without consent and without
legal cause to constitute false arrest.” Id. at 355 (emphasis added). Warren alleges in his
complaint that the drug transaction at issue was recorded and that the defendants mistakenly

thought that he was the buyer in the video. The arrest of a suspected criminal based upon
probable cause (in this case, a video and audio recording) is permissible under the law. U.S.
Const. Amend. IV. Probable cause to arrest a suspect exists where the facts and circumstances
within the officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest “are sufficient for a reasonable person to
conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.” United States v.
Levine, 80 F.3d 129, 132 (5th Cir.1996)). According to Warren, the officers who arrested him
mistook him for the person recorded on video selling drugs. A simply mistake in identification
does not rise to the level of an arrest without probable cause. Indeed, though Warren apparently
proclaimed his innocence, police officers “have no duty to investigate an exculpatory statement
of the accused, and their refusal to do so does not defeat probable cause.” See, Mistretta v.
Prokesch, 5 F.Supp.2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).1 Thus, as it appears that the defendant officers had
probable cause to arrest Warren based upon the recorded drug transaction, this claim must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In addition, the plaintiff Warren seeks as relief only release from custody and dismissal
of the charges pending against him. A federal court must abstain from interfering with state
criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
53-54, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Warren has alleged no such circumstances in his
complaint. The instant case will be dismissed for this reason, as well.

1

In addition, it does not appear that Warren was arrested at the scene of the recorded
controlled buy. If, instead, he was arrested pursuant to a warrant – or probable cause for arrest
and detention was later found in a preliminary hearing– then the causal chain is broken, and the
arresting officers cannot be held liable for a Fourth Amendment violation. “Such an arrest is not
unconstitutional, and a complaint based on such an arrest is subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim.” Simon v. United States, 644 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1981); see Walker v. United States,
471 F.Supp. 38, 40 (M.D.Fla.1978).

In sum, the instant case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of March, 2012.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI