IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31080

Summary Calendar

COURTLAND TATUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CITY OF NATCHITOCHES; CAREY ETHEREDGE; RONNIE QUICK; 

NATCHITOCHES PARISH DETENTION CENTER; DEE HAWTHORNE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:12-CV-2670

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Courtland Tatum appeals the denial of his Section 1983 claims for 

alleged constitutional violations arising out of his arrest and prosecution for 

practicing law without a license. We AFFIRM.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-31080 Document: 00513044901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2015
No. 14-31080

In May 2011, Detectives Carey Etheredge and Ronnie Quick of the 

Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s Office sought a warrant for Tatum’s arrest for 

practicing law without a license. Judge Dee Hawthorne issued the requested

warrant after considering evidence that Tatum helped a woman prepare 

divorce papers, did not possess a law license, and had a criminal record that 

would preclude him from even obtaining a license were he otherwise qualified. 

Tatum was arrested and held at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center for 

three days. He was charged with practicing law without a license, but the

charge was later dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

In October 2012, Tatum brought suit under Section 1983 against the City 

of Natchitoches, the Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Natchitoches 

Parish Detention Center, Detectives Etheredge and Quick, and Judge 

Hawthorne for alleged constitutional violations arising out of his detention and 

prosecution. Judge Hawthorne was never summoned and did not make an 

appearance. The sheriff’s office and detention center moved to dismiss for lack 

of capacity to sue or be sued, and the city and Detectives Etheredge and Quick 

moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions after 

Tatum failed to respond, and also dismissed the claims against Judge 

Hawthorne. Tatum timely appealed.

We agree with the district court’s conclusions and rationale. First, 

Tatum did not show good cause for failing to summon Judge Hawthorne. Thus, 

the court properly dismissed the claims against her. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). 

Additionally, as the court noted, the claims against Judge Hawthorne relate to 

her judicial acts and are therefore barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity. 

See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978).

Second, the court properly dismissed the claims against the sheriff’s 

office and detention center because Tatum failed to allege or otherwise 

2

 Case: 14-31080 Document: 00513044901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2015
No. 14-31080

establish that they have the capacity to sue or be sued under Louisiana law. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 17(b); LA. CIV. CODE art. 24.

Third, Tatum did not establish the requirements for municipal liability, 

namely a policymaker’s actual or constructive knowledge of an official policy 

or custom that was the moving force behind a constitutional violation. See 

Pineda v. City of Houston, 291 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2002). As the city 

demonstrated in its summary judgment motion and supporting affidavits, the 

sheriff’s office is not part of the city, and the city was not involved in or aware 

of Tatum’s arrest or prosecution. Tatum did not respond to the city’s motion 

or adduce any evidence supporting his claims against it. Thus, the court 

properly granted summary judgment for the city. See Hinojosa v. City of 

Terrell, 864 F.2d 401, 402 (5th Cir. 1989).

Finally, the court properly granted the detectives’ motion for summary 

judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Under the qualified immunity 

doctrine, officers maintain immunity if probable cause arguably existed for an 

arrest. Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2001). Detectives 

Etheredge and Quick demonstrated in their summary judgment motion and 

supporting affidavits that they possessed probable cause to believe that Tatum 

illegally prepared divorce papers for a woman without a law license. Tatum 

did not respond to the motion or adduce evidence. Thus, summary judgment 

in favor of the detectives was appropriate. See Hinojosa, 864 F.2d at 402.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-31080 Document: 00513044901 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/15/2015