Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N os . 08- 40755 & 08- 40945 Su m m ar y Cal endar
D A N IE L R AYU N G E R , P la in tiff

–A p p e lla n t, v. SHE RI FF GREG TAYLOR; DEPU TY S H ERI FF J OH N SM I TH ; DEPU TY S HE R I F F B R YA N C HA S ON ; J A I L OR Z A K MONT OYA ; J US T I C E O F T HE PE AC E C AR L D AV I S; AN D ER SO N CO U N TY , TEX AS , D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees .

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 06- C V

- 466
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D a n ie l R a yU n g e r a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t o n h is cla im s u n d e r4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 3
. We a f f i r m. I I n 2005, as U ngerw as dri vi ng t hro ugh A nder so n C ount y, T exas , w i t h an
o ut
- o f

- s t at e l i c e nse p l ate , he w as pul l e d o ve rb y D e put y She r i f f J o hn Sm i t h, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 2, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

See T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art
. 4 .1 2 (a)( 1 ). 1 2 p u r p o r te d lyfo rd e fe c tiv e e x h a u s t e q u ip m e n t. D e p u ty S m ith a s k e d U n g e rfo rh is driver ’ s l i c ens e a nd pro of of l i abi l i t y i nsur ance , and U ngerr epl i ed t hathe had
n ei t h er. D epu t y S m i t h t h en asked U n ger f or h i s n am e an d date of bi rt h
. U n ger gave t he deput y hi s nam e and expl ai ned t hat he di d not use a bi r t hday s i nce , as an i den t i f

yi n g n u m ber, i tcoul d be u sed t o obtai n a soci al securi t y n u m ber, w h i ch
w ou l d vi ol ate hi s deepl y h el d rel i gi ou s bel i ef of not bei n g n u m bered. H e al so c l ai m e d t hathe c o ul d no tb e a r r e s t e d s i nc e , a s t he “ di rectp o s t e r i t y o f t he A m er i c an peo pl e, ” he had s ove r ei gn i m m uni t y. D ep u ty S h erif

f B ry a n C h a son arrive d at th e sce n e sh ortly after D ep u ty S m i t h
. D epu t y S m i t h f ri sked an d h an dcu f

fed U n ger, a n d D epu t y C h ason t h en t ran sport ed U n ger to the A n derson C ou n t y Jail
. U n ger w as book ed on charges of op era ti n g a ve h i cl e w i th ou t l i a b i l i ty i n su ra n ce, op era ti n g a v eh i cl e w i th ou t a va l i d dr i ve r’ s l i cen se, a n d op era ti n g a m otor veh i cl e w i th de fective eq u i p m en t. T h e f ol l ow i n g af

t ernoon h e w as arrai gn ed bef ore Justi ce of

t h e P eace C arlD avis
. U nge rr e f

us e d t o e nt e ra pl e a. H e w as rel eas e d t he s am e da y af t e rpo s t i ng $ 1 ,5 0 0 in b a il. U n ger s u b sequ en t l y f i l ed a p et i t i on f

or w ri tof

ha beas corpu s agai n st Sh er i f f G r eg Tayl orand Just i c e D avi s i n t he C ount y C our t of A nder so n C ount y, T exas. In a h e a ri n g on t h e peti t i on , t h e courtdi scovered t h at t h e charges agai nstU ngerw er e e r r oneo usl y f i l ed i n t he 2nd Pre c i nctof A n d erson C ount y, r at he rt han t he 1 st P r e c i nc t , w he r e t he a l l e ge d t r af f i c o f fe ns e s o c c ur r e d. B eca u se un d er T ex a s l a w m i sd em ea n or case s a re t o be t ri ed i n th e pre c in c t in
w hi c h t he o f

fens es oc c urr ed, t he c our t ru l ed th atJust i c e D avi s di d nothave 1 proper ven u e a n d di sm i ssed t h e charges aga i n stU n ger. U n ger’ s bai lw as t h en r e t u r n e d t o h i m. Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

3 U n ge r, pr oce ed i n g p ro se , su ed S h erif f T a ylor, D ep u ty S m ith , D ep u ty C h ason , Jai l or Zak M on t oya, Ju st i ce D avis , an d A n derson C ou n t y, T exas, a l l e g i n gn u me r o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a lv i o l a t i o n s . H e a l s o b r o u g h ts t a t e l a w c l a i ms o f i nt e nt i o nali nf

l i c t i o n of

em o t i o naldi s t r e s s , fal s e i m pr i s o nm e nt , a nd m al i c i o us p rose cu ti on . B oth U n ge r an d the de fen d a n ts m ov ed f or su m m a ryj u d gm en t. T h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of t h e defen da n t s based
on qu a l i fi ed i m m u n i ty for U n ge r’ s F ou rth A m en d m en t cl a i m i n con n ection w i th h i s arr estan d su bsequ en tdetenti on , hi s Fou rt h A m en dm en tcl ai m i n c o nnect i on w i t h t h e search of h i s person and t h e car, hi s E i gh t h A m en dm en tcl ai m s r el ated to th e co n tin u o u s illu m in a tio n in t h e ja il a n d th e ja il’ s u n s a n ita r yco n d itio n s , h is F i rst an d E i gh th A m en d m en t claim th a t h e w a s d en i ed a d i et i n acco rd a n ce w i th Bib l i c a ld i e t a r yl a ws , h i s Ei g h t h Ame n d m e n tc l a i m s t h a th e wa s t o r t u r e d, de pr i ve d o f

a b l ank e t , a nd n o tal l o w e d t o m ak e t e l e pho ne c al l s , hi s c l ai m t hathe
w a s d en ie d h is co n sti tu ti on a lri gh t of acce ss to th e cou rts, h i s F ou rth A m e n d m e n t c la im th a t h e w a s n o t b r o u g h t p r o m p tly b e fo r e a m a g is tr a te , h is S i xth A m en dm en tcl ai m f or denialof

acces s t o an a tto rney, an d h i s c l ai m f or vi ol ati on of

t he r i ghtt o t r av e l
. The c o ur tr ul e d t hatt he de fe nda nt s w e r e not shi el ded by qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y on U n ger’ s Fou rt h A m en dm en tcl ai m against D eput y Sm i t h f

ort he i ni t i alt r af

f i c s t op and hi s E i ght h A m endm entc l ai m t hat h e w as den i ed bed di n g. Th e courtf u rt h er r u l ed that Ju st i ce D avis w as enti t l ed t o j udi c i ali m m uni t y as t o al l o f U nger ’ s c l ai m s agai nsthi m , t hatU ngerhad fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m of m uni c i pall i abi l i t y aga i nstA nder so n C ount y, and t hat t he def endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m ar y j udgm enton al lof U nger ’ s st at e l aw c l ai m s. The c our t deni ed U nger ’ s m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent i n i t s ent i r et y. U n ger subsequ en t l y m oved t o am en d h i s c om pl ai n t , an d t h e cou rtden i ed th e m o tio n . H is tw o r e m a in in g c la im s p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l, a n d th e ju r yru le d in favor of t h e defen da n t s on both cl ai m s. Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Ac kerson v. Bean Dredgi ng LLC, 5 8 9F .3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9). 2 F ED . R. C IV . P
. 1 5 (a)(2 ). 3 See Fah im v. Marrio ttHotel Servs., I nc. , 5 5 1 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 4 F ED . R. C IV . P
. 1 6 (b)( 4). 5 Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Cit y of ElPaso , 34 6 F .3d 5 41, 546(5th Cir. 2 003) (intern al 6 qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed). 4 U nge rno w pr e s en t s f i ve i s s ue s o n a ppe al
. Fi r s t , he a s s e r t s t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie d h is m o tio n to a m e n d h is
com pl ai n t
. Secon d, he cl ai m s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterred i n den yi n g h i s m ot i on fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t. T h ir d , h e co n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in pa rt i al l y gr ant i ng t he de fe nda nt s ’m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt
. Fo ur t h, he
a ve rs th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed i ts discreti on i n de n yin g h i s m oti on to com pel
. A n d f

i n al l y, h e argu es t h at t h e di st ri ct court abu sed i t s di scr et i on w h en i tproceeded t o h ear t h e case af t er U n ger f

i l ed an aff

i da vi tal l egi n g j u di ci albi as. II W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f a m o t i o n t o a m e nd t he c o m pl ai nt f orabus e o f

di sc r et i on. Feder alR ul e o f C i vi l Proc edur e 15( a) ( 2) pr ovi des t hat 2 l eave to am en d the com pl ai n tshou l d be given “f reely .
. . w h en j u st i ce s o r e q u ir e s .” B u t b e c a u s e U n g e rf ile d h is m o tio n t o a m e n d t h e c o m p la in t n e a r ly 3
e le v e n m o n th s a fte rth e d e a d lin e fo ra m e n d m e n t s in th e s c h e d u lin go r d e r , h is
m o t i o n t o a m e nd i s g o ve r ne d b y Rul e 1 6(b)
. U nde rRul e 1 6(b) , a s c he dul i ng 4
o r d e rm a yb e m o d ifie d o n ly“fo rg o o d ca u s e .” W e co n s id e rfo u rfa c to r s in 5 deter m i ni ng go o d c aus e : “ ( 1) t he e xp l ana t i o n f o rt he fai l ur e t o t i m e l y m o ve for le a v e to a m e n d ; (2 ) th e im p o r ta n c e o f th e a m e n d m e n t; (3 ) p o te n tia l p r eju d ic e in al l ow i n g t h e am en dm en t ; a n d ( 4) the ava i l abil i t y of a conti n u an ce t o cure such p r eju d ic e .” 6 Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Blackv. J

.I. CaseC

o., I nc. , 2 2F .3 d 5 6 8, 570 (5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4); see a lso Beck er v . 7 Tidewater, I

nc. , 5 86 F.3 d 35 8, 3 65 n.4 (5thC ir. 2 009) (noting th at we normally decline to review adis trict court’sd enial of su mmaryj u dgme nt aft erf ulltri al onth e me rits). Black , 22F .3d at 5 71. 8 Threadgill v. P

rudent ial Sec. Grou

p, I nc. , 1 4 5F .3 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 2( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8). 9 Bru mfield v. Hollins , 5 5 1 F .3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 10 5 U ngerar gued t hatt he di st r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d al l ow am endm ents i nce he w as p r o s e a n d h a d “ in a r t fu ll y p le d ” h is c la im s . A s r e a s o n s fo rth e d e n ia l o f U n g e r ’s
m o t i o n, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c i t e d t he t ar di ne s s o f t he m o t i o n, t he i m m i ne nc e of tri a l , a n d th e d efen d a n ts’fa i l u re to con sen t t o th e a m en d m en t. U n der t h ese c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d c o n s i d e r i n gU n g e r ’s fa i l u r e t o e x p l a i n t h e u n t i m e l i n e s s o f h is
m oti on , th e d i stri ct co u rt a cted w i th i n its discreti on i n de n yin g U n ge r l ea ve to am e nd. I I I U n ger next contends that t h e di st ri ct court erred i n den yi n g h i s m ot i on f or s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. B u t “ a n in te r lo c u to r yo r d e rd e n y in gs u m m a r yju d g m e n t is
n ott o be revi ew ed w h ere f i n al j u dg m en t ad verse t o t h e m ovan ti s r en dered on th e b a s is o f a s u b s e q u e n t fu ll tr ia l o n th e m e r its .” O nc e t r i alb e gi ns , “ t he 7
sum m ary jud gm en tm ot i on [] ef fect i vel y [becom es] m oot
. ” B ecau se U n ger 8
r e c e i v e d a n a d v e r s e f i n a l j u d g me n t a f

t e r a j u r y t r i a lo n t h e me r i t s o f h i s c a s e , we w i l ln ot con sider h i s ap p ea l from th e den i a lof h i s m oti on f or su m m a ryj u d gm en t. IV U n ger a l so app eal s f rom t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of parti alsum m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of t h e defen da n t s. W e revi ew t h e gran tof a m ot i on f

or su m m a ryj u d gm en t d e no vo , a p p l yin g t h e sam e st a n d a rd a s th e dist ri ct cou rt. 9 Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e w he n t he c o m pet e nts um m ar y j udg m e nt e vi de nc e de m o ns t r at e s t hatt he r e a r e no g e nui ne i s s ue s of m at e r i alfac tand t he
mo v i n gp a r t yi s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. 10 Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

We rnecke v. Ga rc ia , 591 F.3d386, 392 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Har lo w v . F itzgerald , 11 4 5 7U .S
. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8( 1 9 8 2 )) (intern al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed).

I d
. 12 Pearson v. C

allahan , 1 2 9S
. C t. 8 0 8 , 8 1 5 -1 6(2 0 0 9). 13 Id
. at81 6. 14 Id
. at81 8. 15 6 U nge rc hal l e nge s s e ve n o f t he rul i ngs i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rg r ant i ng pa rt i al sum m ary j u dg m en t
. H e cha l l en ges t h e di st ri ct court’ s gran tof sum m ary ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity fo r(1 ) h is F o u r th A m e n d m e n t c la im in
c o nne c t i o n wi t h hi s a r r e s ta nd s ubs e que nt de t e nt i o n, ( 2) hi s Four t h Am e ndm e nt cl a i m i n con n ection w ith t h e sea rch of h i s ca r an d h i s p erso n , ( 3 ) h i s F ou rth A m e n d m e n t cla im fo r fa ilu r e to b r in gh im p r o m p tly b e fo r e a m a g is tr a te , (4 ) h is
c la im fo rv io la tio n o f t h e r i g h t t o tr a v e l, a n d (5 ) h is cla im s re la te d to h is p u n is h m e n ta s a p r e t r ia l d e t a in e e . U n g e ra ls o c h a ll e n g e s : (6 ) t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
r ul i ng t hatJust i c e D avi s w as ent i t l ed t o j udi c i ali m m uni t y and ( 7) i t s di sm i ss al of hi s c l ai m s f

orm uni c i pall i abi l i t y aga i nstA nder so n C ount y. A Q u a l i fi ed i m m u n i ty p rotects gov ern m en t em p l oy ee s a ga i n st ci vill i a b i l i ty

“ i n sofar as t h ei r c on du ctdoes not vi ol ate c l ear ly e stabl i shed st atutor y or c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght s o f w hi c h a r e as o nabl e p er s o n woul d ha ve kno w n. ” The 11 Supr e m e Cour tha s ar t i c ul at e d a t w o - pr o ng i nqui r y i nt o r e s o l vi ng go ve r nm e nt of f i ci al s’qu al ifi ed i m m u n i t y cl ai m s. U n der t h e f i rstprong , t h e courtm u st 12 d e cid e w h e th e r th e fac ts th e p la in tiff h a s s h o w n m a k e ou t a v iola tion of a consti t u t i on alri gh t
. Th e sec on d p rong requ i res t h e courtt o consi der “ w h et h er 13 t h e ri gh t at i ssue w as ‘ cl earl y est abli shed ’ at t h e t i m e of defenda n t’ s all eged
m i scondu ct
. ” Th e courtm ay con si der t h ese prongs i n an y sequ en ce. 14 15 As t o t he s e c o nd i nqui r y, a ri gh ti s “ c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d” w he n “ t he Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Wernecke , 5 9 1 F .3 d at 3 9 2(intern al qu ot ationmark s an d citationo mitt ed). 16 Id
. at39 3. 17 See Clu b Ret ro, L .L.C. v. Hilton , 5 6 8F .3 d 1 8 1 , 2 0 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9). 18 Flores v. Cit

y of P alacios , 381 F.3d 391, 402 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Un ited Statesv . 19 Levine , 8 0F .3 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 2( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 6)) (intern al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed). A law enforcement officer may requ est the driver’s lice nse and vehicle registration 20 in co nn ection with atraff icstop . See United States v. Brigham , 38 2 F .3d 5 00, 507 -08 (5thC ir.

7 c ont our s of

t he r i ght[ ar e] s uf

f i c i ent l y c l ear [suc h] t hata r eas onabl e o f f i c i al
w ou l d u n derst an d th a t w h a t h e i s doi n g vi ol ates t h at r i gh t
. ” Th e f ocus i s on 16

“ fai rw ar ni ng” a nd whet he rt he o f f i c i alw o ul d b e “ o n no t i c e ” t hathi s a c t i o ns vi ol ated const i t u t i on alri gh t s. 17 1 U n ger f i rstcontends that t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n g ran t i n g sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n h is cla im th a t D e p u ty S m i t h a n d D e p u ty C h a s o n v io la te d h is Four t h Am e ndm e ntr i ght s b y unl awf ul l y ar r e s t i ng anddet ai ni ng hi m . The di st ri ct court rul ed t h at t h e of f i cers w ere en t i t l ed t o qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y since U n g e rh a d fa ile d to s h o w th a t t h e yh a d v io la te d a co n s tit u tio n a l rig h t. T o succeed on a con st i t u t i on alcl ai m f or un l aw f

u larres t , t h e pl ai n t i f f m u st show t h at t h e arres tw as not supp o rte d by probab l e cause. “ P robable cau se 18
e x is t s w h e n th e to t a li t yo f fa c t s a n d c ir c u m s t a n c e s w it h in a p o li c e o ff ic e r ’s k n ow l ed ge at th e m o m e n t of arre st are su ff

i ci en t f or a rea son a b l e p erso n to c o n c lu d e th a t t h e s u s p e c t h a d co m m itt e d o rw a s co m m itt in ga n o ffe n s e .” 19 D epu t y S m i t h asser t s t h at h e h ad probab l e cause t o arres tU n ger on three gr o unds : ( 1) dr i vi ng w i t ho uta l i c e ns e i n vi o l at i o n of T e xa s T r ans po r t at i o n Cod e § 5 2 1
. 0 2 1 , ( 2 ) d r i v i n gwi t h o u tl i a b i l i t yi n s u r a n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 6 0 1
. 0 5 1 , a nd (3 ) o p e r a tin ga v e h ic le w ith d e fe c tiv e e q u ip m e n t in v io la tio n o f § 5 4 7 .6 0 5
. It is
u n di spu t ed that D epu t y S m i t h asked U n g e r f or hi s l i cense an d p roof of i n su ra n ce a n d t h a t U n ge r resp on d ed tha t he h a d n eit h er. A t t h a t po i n t,

20 Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

2 0 0 4). See A twa ter v. City of Lago Vi sta , 53 2 U .S. 31 8, 3 53 (200 1) (holdingth at “ [i]f an

21 officer h as probab le cau se tobelieveth at an indivi dualh as co mmitted ev ena very minor crimin al offen se in his presence, he may, witho ut violating th e Fourth Amen dment, arre st th e of fe n der”). Virgin ia v. Mo ore , 1 2 8S
. C t. 1 5 9 8 , 1 6 0 7(2 0 0 8). 22 Id
. 23 8 D e put y Sm i t h ha d pr o ba bl e ca us e t o ar r e s tU nge rfo rvi o l at i o n of § 521
. 02 1 and § 5 47. 605. Acc or di ngl y, U ngerhas nots how n t hatt here a re t r i abl e fac t ual

21 i ssues as t o w h e th e r t h e arres tvi ol ated his const i t u t i on alri gh t s. Th e di st ri ct c o u r t c o r r e c tly g r a n te d s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n th is cla im
. 2 U n ger next argu e s th a t t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n gran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m e ntb as e d o n q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y o n hi s c l ai m t hatD e put y Sm i t h a nd D e put y Chas o n unl awf ul l y s e ar c he d hi s c ara nd h i s per son. U nge rc o nt e nds th a t th e sear ch es w ere u n l a w ful since th ey w ere n ot i n ci d en t t o a l a w ful arre st. H e d o e s n o t c o n te s t t h e s c o p e o f th e s e a r c h e s . L a w en forcem e n t of fi cers “m a y p erform sea rch es inc i d en t t o consti t u t i o nall y pe r m i s s ibl e arres t s i n order t o ensu re t h ei r s afet y an d safegu ard
ev i d en ce.” S u ch w a rra n tl ess sea rch es m a y b e p e rform ed i n con n ection w i th

22
a n y arre st b a sed on p rob a b l e cau se. H ere , a ft er U n ge r’ s a rres t, D ep u ty S m i th 23
a n d D e p u ty C h a s o n p e r fo r m e d a lim ite d s e a r c h o f U n g e r ’ s ca r , a s w e l l a s h is pe r s o n a nd wal l e t , i n an e f f o r tt o f i nd p r o o f

o f i ns ur anc e a nd v e hi c l e r e gi s t r at i o n. Bec aus e t he a r r e s ta ti s s ue w as b as e d o n pr o ba bl e c aus e a nd t hus l awf ul , t he
s ubs e que nts e ar c he s o f U nge r ’ s c ara nd p e r s o n wer e a l s o l awf ul
. As s uc h, t he d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly g r a n te d s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n th is cla im
. 3 U n ger next asser t s t h at t h e di st ri ctcou rterred i n ru l i n g t h at the of f i cers Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

C ou n t y of R iv ersi de v. McLau

gh li n , 500 U. S. 44, 53 (1991) (cit ing Ge rste in v. Pugh , 24 4 2 0U .S
. 1 0 3 , 1 1 4( 1 9 7 5))
.

Id
. at56
. 25 Id
. 26 White v. Taylor , 9 5 9F .2 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 ). 27 9 w e r e e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni t y i n c o nne c t i o n w i t h hi s c l ai m t hat t h ey vi ol ated h i s F ou rt h A m en dm en tri gh t s by fai l i n g t o t ak e hi m prom ptl y bef ore a m a g is tr a te
. The Supr e m e Cour t has he l d t hat pe r s o ns ar r e s t e d w i t ho ut a w ar r ant

“ m ust pro m pt l y be br ought bef or e a neut r al m agi st r at e f or a j udi c i al det er m i nat i on o f

pr obabl e c ause . ” The C our thas f urt herex pl ai ned t hat 24 det er m i nat i ons of

pr obabl e c ause w i t hi n 48 hour s of ar rest w i l l gener al l y be
c ons i der ed pr om pt
. St i l l , a pro babl e caus e de t er m i nat i on w i t hi n 48 hour s m ay 25
no tpa s s c o ns t i t ut i o nalm us t e ri f the a r r e s t e d p e r s o n c an s ho w t hatt he det er m i nat i on w as “de l ayed unreas onabl y. ” Exam pl es of unre as onabl e de l ay 26
m i gh t i n cl u de “ del ay i n curred f or t h e pu rpose of

gatheri n g ad di t i on alevi den ce to ju s tify th e a r r e s t, d e la ym o tiv a te d b yill w ill a g a in s t t h e a r r e s te d in d iv id u a l,
o rd e la yfo rd e la y ’ s s a k e .” 27 H er e, i ti s und i sput ed th a t U ngerw as ar r es t ed o n O c t obe r27, 2005, b o o k e d in to th e ja il a t 1 1 :2 3 a .m . th a t s a m e d a y , a n d ta k e n b e fo r e J u s tic e D a v is f or arr ai gn m en tt h e f ol l ow i n g da y at 1: 47 p. m . Th u s U n ger’ s app earan ce bef ore t he m agi st r at e oc c urr ed w i t hi n t he 48- hour t i m e f r am e r equi r ed by McL a ug h lin
. H o w e v e r , th e p r o b a b le ca u s e d e te r m in a tio n co u ld s till b e u n c o n s tit u tio n a l if it
w a s “de l a ye d u n rea son a b l y.” D e fe n d a n ts p r o v id e d e v id e n c e th a t o n O c t o b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , J u s tic e D a v is
com pl et ed h i s arra ign m e n t s pri or t o t h e booking of U n ger an d h el d n o ot h er arrai gn m en t s un t i lt h e f ol l ow i n g da y. U n ger di d n ot ref u t e t h i s evi den ce. N or Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

J onesv . He lms , 4 5 2U .S
. 4 1 2 , 4 1 9( 1 9 8 1 ). 28 Id
. 29 10 di d h e provi de an y evi den ce of u n reasona bl e del ay. A ccor di n gl y, U n ger h as not sho w n t hatt her e a r e i ss ues of m at er i alfac tconc er ni ng w het herthe l es s t han 48- h o u rd e la yv io la te d h is co n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts
. 4 U n ger next argues that t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n d i sm i ssi n g h i s cl ai m f or vi ol at i on o f

hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ghtt o t r avel
. Al t hough t her e i s a f und am ent al
r ig h t to t r a v e l, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s re c o g n iz e d th a t t h e r e a r e “s itu a tio n s in
w hi c h a S t at e m ay pre venta ci t i ze n f r om l eavi ng, ” s uch as w hen “ a per so n has been convi ct ed of

a cr i m e w ith i n a State. ” Th e C ou rtha s f u rt h er expl ai n ed 28 t hat“ e ve n b e f

o r e t r i alo rc o nvi c t i o n, pr o ba bl e c aus e m ayj us t i f y an ar r e s ta nd sub sequ en tt em porary detenti on ” such tha tt h e person i s “ t em porari l y dep rived of hi s f r ee dom t o t r avelel se w her e w i th i n orw i t houtt he St at e. ” H er e, as 29 di s c us s e d sup ra , D e put y Sm i t h ha d p r o ba bl e c aus e t o ar r e s t U nge rf o rdr i vi ng w ith o u t a lice n s e o r lia b ility in s u r a n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , U n g e r ’ s b r ie f d e te n tio n d id
n otvi ol ate hi s r i gh t t o t ravel , an d t h e di st ri ct court properl y gran t ed su m m ary j u d g me n to n t h i s c l a i m. 5 U nger ’ s br i ef

al so st at es that“t he grava m en of h i s c l ai m of

puni shm entas a p retrial d eta i n ee i s a s fol l ow s” a n d th en l i sts five p rob l em s h e ha d w ith h is pretr i aldetenti on , i n cl u di n g h i s pl acem en ti n a holdi n g t an k, h i s l ack of acces s to a p h on e, h i s l a ck of a cces s to p en ci l a n d p a p er, h i s l a ck of b ed d i n g, a n d h is l ack of vi si t ati on . H i s bri ef

does not present an y argu m en t s w i t h regard t o t h ese i ssues an d d oes not ad dress t h e di st ri ct court’ s reasons f or di sm i ssi n g h i s c l ai m s. A l t h ou gh pro se br iefs a re l iberal l y constr u ed, “ such l i t i gan t s m u stst i l lbri ef Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Lon go ria v. Dretke , 5 0 7F .3 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 30 Yohey v. Collins , 9 8 5F .2 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3). 31 Davis v. TarrantC

oun ty, Tex
. , 565 F.3d 214, 221 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (c i t i ng Mi re les v. 32 Waco , 5 0 2U .S
. 9 , 9 -1 0( 1 9 9 1 )) , cert . de nied , 1 3 0S
. C t. 6 2 4(2 0 0 9).

Bre wer v . B lack wel l , 6 9 2F .2 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 2 ). 33 Mireles , 50 2 U .S. at11 -12. 34 St ump v. Spark man , 4 3 5U .S
. 3 4 9 , 3 5 6( 1 9 7 8). 35 I d
. 36 11 c o nt e nt i o ns i n o r de rt o pr e s e r ve t h em . ” Cl ai m s no ta de qua t e l y ar gue d i n a 30 bri ef are deem ed aban don ed on ap pea l
. A ccor di n gl y, U n ger ha s w ai ved t h ese 31 i ssues. B U ngeral so c hal l enges t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s sum m ar y j udgm ent r ul i ng t hat Ju st i ce D avis is e n t i t l ed to j u di ci ali m m u n i t y. U n ger contends that Justi ce D avi s “ fal se l y ac t ed i n t he c apac i t y o f a j udi c i al of f i c er i n a c as e i n w hi c h he w as w h oll y lack i n g in j u ri sd i cti on . ” Aju d g e g e n e r a lly h a s a b s o lu te im m u n ity fr o m s u its fo rd a m a g e s . T h is 32 i m m uni t y e xt ends t o j ust i c es of the p ea ce. Judge s do not , how eve r , have

33 i m m u n i t y f

or “ act i on s n ottak en in the j u dg e’ s j u di ci alcapaci t y” or f or “ act i on s, th ou gh j u d i ci a li n n a tu re, tak en i n the com p l ete a b sen ce of allj u ri sd i cti on . ” In 34
c o ns i de r i ng w he t he ra j udg e ’ s a c t i o n w as i n t he c o m pl e t e a bs e nc e o f j ur i s di c t i o n, “t h e s c o p e o f th e ju d g e ’ s ju r is d ic tio n m u s t b e c o n s tr u e d b r o a d ly .” Aju d g e w ill 35
no tb e de pr i ve d o f

i m m uni t y m e r e l y be c aus e hi s ac t i o n “ w as i n e r r o r , w as do ne m a lic io u s ly , o rw a s in e x c e s s o f h is a u th o r ity .” 36 U n g e r ’ s co n t e n tio n th a t D a v is ’ s a c tio n s in a r r a ig n in gh im w e r e “w h o lly l acking i n j u ri sd ic t i on ” ha s no m eri t
. A l lof t h e act i on s of

w h i ch U n ger c o m pl ai ns — de nyi ng hi m t he ri ghtt o m ak e a phone ca l li n co ur t , fai l i ng t o m ak e Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Seei d
. 37 Cit y of St . Lou isv . Pra

prot n ik , 485 U. S. 112, 121 (198 8) (quoti ng Monell v. New York 38 Cit y Dep’tof Soc . Servs. , 4 3 6U .S
. 6 5 8 , 6 8 0( 1 9 7 8))
. Petersonv. Cityof For t Worth, T ex. , 5 8 8F .3 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9), pe t. forcert. 39 filed , No
. 0 9 -9 8 3(F eb
. 1 6 , 2 0 1 0). 12 a f i n d i n g o f p rob a b l e ca u se, d en yin g h i s req u est for pa p er a n d p e n ci li n cou rt, a n d a s k in gh im to e n te r a p le a to th e ch a r g e s — a r e ju d ic ia l in n a tu r e . A n d w h ile Jus t i c e D av i s ’ s ac t i o ns m ay hav e be e n i n e r r o r s i nc e U nge r w as t ak en t o t he
w rong p reci n ct , t h at does n ot rend er t h em perf orm ed “ i n t h e com pl et e absen ce of j uri sdi c t i on. ” Th e di st r i c t c our t c or r ec t l y r ul ed t hat Just i c e D avis w as 37 ent i t l ed t o a bs ol ut e i m m uni t y. C U nge r ’ s ne xtc hal l e n ge t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s um m ar y j udg m e ntr ul i ng c o nc e r ns i t s di s m i s s al o f hi s c l ai m ag ai ns t Ander s o n Count y. U n ger co nt e nds t hatAnde r s o n Count y i nt e nt i o nal l y vi o l at e d hi s ri ghtt o due pr o c e s s o f l aw, r i ght of ac c es s t o c our t s, r i ght t o c ounse l , r i ght not t o be pun i she d as a pre- t r i al det ai nee, and r i ghtt o l iber t y. A l o c alg o ve r nm e nte nt i t y m ayb e s ue d “ i f i ti s a l l e ge d t o ha ve c aus e d a consti t u t i on alt ortt h r o ugh‘ a po l i c y s t at e m e n t , ordi n an ce, regul ati on , or deci si on of f i ci al l y ad opted an d p rom u l ga te d b y t h at body’ s of f i cers . ’” To establ i sh

38
m uni c i pall i abi l i t y under§ 1983, t he pl a i nt i f f m usts how t hat“ ( 1) an of f i c i al pol i cy ( 2) pro m u lgated by t h e m u n i ci pa lpol i cym ak er ( 3) w as t h e m ovi n g f orce b e h in d th e v io la tio n o f a co n s tit u tio n a l rig h t.” 39 U n ger ha s not show n t h at t h ere are i ssues of m ater i alfactas t o w h et h er Ander s o n C ou n t y h ad a n o f f i c i alpo l i c y r e s ul t i ng i n c o ns t i t ut i o nalt o r t s . The of f i ci alpol i cy requi rem en tcan be m eti n at l east t h ree di f ferent w ays: ( 1) w h en an “ o f f i c e ro re nt i t y pr o m ul ga t e s a ge ne r al l y ap pl i c ab l e st at e m e ntof po l i c y and t he s ubse quentac tc om pl ai ned of i s si m pl y an i m pl em ent at i on o f t he pol i c y” ; ( 2) Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Bu rgev. P

arish of St. Tammany , 1 8 7F .3 d 4 5 2 , 4 7 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 40 See F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 6 (e)( 1 ). 41 13 w h e n t h ere i s no of

f i ci alpol i cy an n ou n ced, “bu tt h e act i on of t h e pol i cym ak er i t sel f vi ol ated a consti t u t i on alri gh t ” ; or ( 3) w h en t h e pol icy m a k e r fai l s t o act a ff ir m a t iv e ly w h e n th e n e e d t o t a k e a c t io n “ is s o o b v io u s ” th a tth e p o li c y m a k e r ’s i n act i on renders i t“ del iberatel y i n di f ferent t o t h e need
. ” U n ger’ s c on vol u t ed 40 al l egati on s app ear t o al l ege t h at A n derson C ou n ty h ad pol i ci es orcust om s of i nc ar c e r at i ng i ndivi dua l s “ w i t ho uta ut ho r i t y o f s w o r n c o m pl ai nt s , ” pun i s hi ng pre - t r i aldet ai nees f ort hei rr el i gi ous be l i efs, and vi ol a ti n g t he c ons t i t ut i onal ri gh t s of

pre- t ri aldetai n ees. B u tU n ger ha s provi ded n o com petent s u m m ary j udg m e nte vi de nc e t o s upp o r thi s a s s e r t i o n t hatAnde r s o n Count y hads uc h a po l i c y. H i s o nl y pi e c e of ev i denc e — a s t at e m e nti n hi s a f f i da vi tt hathe s po ke
w i t h a m an nam ed H ow ar d G am br el lw ho w as al so “d en i ed h i s r i ght s as puni s hm e ntf

o r t he e xe r c i s e o f

hi s r e l i gi o us b e l i e fs , pl ac e d i n t he ho l di ng t ank
o f th e A n d e r s o n C o u n ty j a i l , a n d d e n ie d th e rig h t t o u s e th e p h o n e to ca ll
c o uns e l”

— i s no t ba s e d o n pe r s o nal kno w l e dg e , and t hus i s no tco m pe t e nt
sum m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce. 41 A ccor di n gl y, U n ger ha s not show n t h at t h ere are t ri able i ssues of facton th e is s u e o f m u n ic ip a l lia b ility
. V In ad di t i on t o hi s s peci f i c c h al l en ges t o t h e di str ict cou rt ’ s s u m m ary j udg m e ntr ul i ng, U nge ra r gue s t hatt he ru l i ng w as i m pr o pe rs i nc e t he defenda n t s’su m m a ry j u dg m en tm ot i on an d repl y shou l d h ave been st ruck for
no nc o m pl i anc e w i t h t he l o c alr ul e s . Sp e c i f i c al l y, U nge ra s sert s thatt he defenda n t s’m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t fa il ed to i n cl u de a stat em en tof
u n di spu t ed m ater i alfact s and fai l ed to i n cl u de ap propri ate ci t ati on s to proper
sum m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce as requ i red by L ocalR u l e C V

- 56 . U n g e r f u rt h er Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Un ited Statesv . Rios -E

sp inoza , 5 9 1 F .3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9). 42 Bu rns v. E

xxonC orp. , 1 5 8F .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 2( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8). 43 O’Malley v. U.S. Fid. &G ua r . C o. , 77 6 F .2d 4 94, 499(5th Cir. 1 985) (intern al 44 qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed). 14 ar gue s t hatt he m ag i s t r at e j udg e s ho ul d no tha ve g i ven c o ns i de r at i o n t o t he d e fen d a n ts’ re p ly b rie f sin ce it e x ce e d e d th e p a g e li m ita tion in L o ca l R u le C V -7 and w as unt i m el y. W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s enf orc e m e n t of t h e l ocalrul es f or abu se of d i scre ti on . H ere , the distri ct cou rt w a s w i th i n i ts discreti on i n refu singto

42 stri k e th e d efen d a n ts’su m m a ryju d gm en t m oti on an d rep l y b ri ef. C on trary to U n ger’ s al l egati on s, t h e sum m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on contai n ed a sect i on of undi s put e d m at e r i alfac t s a nd c i t at i o ns t o t he def e nda nt s ’sum m ar y j udg m e nt e v id e n c e . A n d w h ile t h e r e p lyb r ie f d id e x c e e d t h e p a g e lim ita tio n , L o c a l R u le C V

- 7(l) gives t he di st r i c tc our tdi sc r et i on to al l ow m ot i ons i n exc es s of t he page lim ita tio n . S im ila r ly , L o c a l R u le C V -7 (e ) g iv e s th e co u r t d is c r e tio n to a llo w re p ly br i e fs b e yo nd t he t yp i c alf i ve - da y de ad l i ne . U nde rt he s e ci r c um s t anc e s , w e f i nd
n o a b u se of d iscr e tion in th e d istr ict co u rt’s re fu sa l to str ik e th e re p ly b rie f. VI U nge rnex tar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng h i s m ot i on t o com pel produ ct i on of cert ai n personn el f i l es. I n hi s m ot i on , U n ger c o m pl ai n e d t hatt he 1 , 00 0- pa ge pe r s o nne lf i l e a l r e ad y pr o duc e d b y t he d e fe n d a n ts w a s ille g ib le in p a r ts
. D e fe n d a n ts r e s p o n d e d th a t t h e p la in tiff co u ld
c o m e b yth e s h e r iff’s o ffic e to re v ie w th e file p e r s o n a lly
. W e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den ia l o f a m ot i on t o com pelf or abu se of di scr et i on . At ri al court’ s deci si on pert ai n i n g t o di scovery s h ou l d be reversed

43 “o n lyin a n u n u s u a l a n d e x c e p tio n a l ca s e .” H e r e , th e d is tr ic t co u r t a c te d w ith in 44 i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng t he m o t i o n t o c o m pe ls i nc e t he de fe nda nt s ha d a l r e ad y Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

Matass arin v. L

ynch , 1 7 4F .3 d 5 4 9 , 5 7 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 45 Henderson v. Dep’tof Pu b. Safety&C orr. , 9 0 1 F .2 d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 0). 46 Id
. 472 8U .S .C
. § 4 5 5 (a). 48 Ma tassa ri n , 17 4 F .3d at 5 71. 49 15 produ ced t h e personn elf i l e an d h ad al so given U n ger t h e opp ort u n i t y t o revi ew th e file in p e r s o n . V II L a s tly , U n g e rco n te s ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e ’ s r e fu s a l to r e c u s e h im s e lf af t erU ngerf

i l ed an af

f i davi tal l egi ng bi as an d m ov i n g f ort he j udge’ s r ec usal
u n der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 144 an d § 455
. W e revi ew t h e den i al of a m ot i on t o rec u se f or a b us e o f

d i s c r e t i o n. S e c t i o n 1 4 4 r e l a t e s t o c ha r g e s o f “ a c t ua lb i as . ” To 4 5 46 pr o c e e d un de r§ 1 44, the m o va ntm us tpr e s e nta n a f f i da vi tt hatm e e t s t he fol l ow i n g re q u i rem en ts: “( 1 ) th e fa cts m u st be m a terialan d stated w i th pa rt i cul ari t y; ( 2) t h e facts m u st b e such tha ti f t rue they w ou l d conv i n ce a r e a s o n a b l e m a n t h a t a b ia s e x is ts ; a n d (3 ) th e fa c ts m u s t s h o w th e b ia s is persona l , as opposed t o j u di ci al , in n ature. ” U n der § 455 , a j u dg e m u strec u se 47 hi m se l f “ i n any pr oc ee di ng i n w hi c h hi s i m par t i a l i ty m i ghtr eas onabl y be q u e s tio n e d .” T h e s ta n d a r d is “w h e th e ra re a s o n a b le p e r s o n , w ith fu ll 48 k n o w le d g e o f

a llo f t h e c ir c u m s t a n c e s , w o u ld h a r b o rd o u b t s a b o u tth e ju d g e ’s im p a r tia lity .” 49 U nger ’ s af

f i davi tessen ti al l y al l ege s t hatt he di st r i c tc our tj udge w as bi as e d b e c aus e o f

hi s unfav o r ab l e r ul i ngs o n U nge r ’ s num e r o us no nm e r i t o r i o us m o tio n s , o b je c tio n s , a n d co m p la in ts
. B e c a u s e th e a lle g e d b ia s is “ju d ic ia l,”
ra th er th a n “pe rson a l” i n n a tu re, th e facts a l l eg ed d o n ot m ee t t h e req u i rem en ts Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 08- 40755 & 08- 40945

See Dav isv. Bd. of

Sch. Com m’

rs of Mobi leCounty , 51 7 F .2d 1 044 , 10 51 (5thC ir. 50 197 5) (expl aining

th at the all eged bia s was not extra-j udicial , but “very much ju dicial,” since th e mov antswerec om pl ainin gof lan gu a ge inanord eran d ano pinio n). 16 f or a § 144 af

f i da vi t
. N ei t h er do t h e al l egati on s s h ow t h at a r eason able person

50
w ou l d d ou bt t h e di st ri ctcourtj u dg e’ s i m pa rt i al i t y. A s s u ch , th e di st ri ctcourt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in gU n g e r ’ s m o tio n .
* * * F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr i c t c o u r t is AF F I RMED. Case: 08-40755 Document: 00511039898 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/02/2010