Blake v. Lambert et al

Filing 48

ORDER and JUDGMENT of liability against Defendant Don Lambert in his individual capacity re 39 USCA Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 9/3/2019. (dbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
CARLA BLAKE

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-89-SA-DAS

DON LAMBERT, and
PRENTISS COUNTY

DEFENDANTS
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Carla Blake filed this case on June 12, 2017 against Prentiss County, Mississippi, and Don
Lambert, a Prentiss County School Attendance Officer.1 In her Complaint [1], Blake alleges that
Lambert and Prentiss County violated her constitutional rights and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Blake asserted two claims against Lambert individually. First Blake asserted a claim alleging
that Lambert violated her Fourth Amendment right, recognized in Malley v. Briggs, to be free from
arrest based on a “warrant application . . . so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render
official belief in its existence unreasonable.” 475 U.S. 335, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 89 L. Ed. 2d 271
(1986). Second, Blake alleged that Lambert violated her Fourth Amendment right, recognized in
Franks v. Delaware, to “be free from police arrest without a good faith showing of probable
cause.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978).
Lambert filed a Motion to Dismiss [9] all of the claims against him, arguing that Blake’s
Complaint failed to state a claim against him, and in the alternative, that he is entitled to the
protection of qualified immunity. Because both parties relied on matters outside the pleadings, the
Court treated Lambert’s motion as one for summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d), 56.

1

Blake sues Lambert in his individual capacity only.

On March 9, 2018 the Court entered an Order [31] and Memorandum Opinion [32] denying
Lambert’s requests for dismissal and qualified immunity as to both of Blake’s claims. Lambert
appealed this Court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to the collateral order
doctrine. See Notice of Appeal [33]. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court’s ruling denying
qualified immunity to Lambert on Blake’s Malley claim. The Fifth Circuit reversed this Court’s
finding on Blake’s Franks claim and held that Lambert is entitled to qualified immunity on that
claim. In so holding, the Fifth Circuit stated:
In Kohler v. Englade we held that “a plaintiff cannot hold an officer
liable under Franks for intentionally omitting important exculpatory
information from a warrant affidavit when the officer has also
committed a Malley violation by presenting a facially deficient
warrant affidavit to the issuing judge.” Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d
1104, 1113-14 (5th Cir. 2006). We reach the same result here. See
Montesano v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 818 F.2d 423, 426 (5th
Cir. 1987) (holding that “one panel cannot overturn another panel”).
Blake v. Lambert, 921 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 2019).
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in this case explicitly holds that Lambert committed a Malley
violation, that Blake has established liability against Lambert under Malley, and thus relief for her
Franks claim is cut off.
Pursuant to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in this case, the Court now enters summary judgment
against Defendant Lambert in his individual capacity for Plaintiff Blake’s claim that Lambert
violated her Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Malley v. Briggs, 475
U.S. 335, 106 S. Ct. 1092. With liability decided, the Plaintiff’s Malley claim will be set for a trial
on damages following the resolution of the Plaintiff’s claims against Prentiss County.
It is so ORDERED on this the 3rd day of September, 2018.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2