Opinion ID: 8870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fourth Amendment Claims--Unlawful Seizure

Text: 37 Brooks cross-appeals the summary judgments against him on his claims based on unlawful confinement under the Fourth Amendment. 8 All defendants were sued in both official and individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Appellants. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the grant of summary judgment against Brooks. 38 Brooks argues that his continued incarceration after the nolle prosequi order was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of all Cross-Appellees. 9 As the lower court noted, Fourth Amendment claims are appropriate when the complaint contests the method or basis of the arrest and seizure of a person. Yet Brooks did not challenge his arrest, which was made pursuant to a valid capias, as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but challenged only his continued incarceration. 39 We reference our decision in Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1449 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 509 U.S. 905, 113 S.Ct. 2998, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993), by analogy, for the proposition that once the incidents of a valid arrest have long since been completed and the pretrial detainee remains in detention, the Fourth Amendment no longer applies when the challenge is solely to continued incarceration. In Valencia, this Circuit held that neither the Unreasonable Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment nor the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment is applicable in determining whether a detention official's use of deliberate force was excessive. Id. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are the appropriate constitutional provisions for this determination. Id. 40 As the Court stated,We do not believe that the Fourth Amendment provides an appropriate constitutional basis for protecting against deliberate official uses of force occurring, as in this case, after the incidents of arrest are completed, after the plaintiff has been released from the arresting officer's custody and after the plaintiff has been in detention awaiting trial for a significant period of time.... As the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, it seems primarily directed to the initial act of restraining an individual's liberty, such as an investigatory stop or arrest. 41 Id. at 1443-1444. 42 The logic of Valencia applies to the instant case. The Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to a pretrial detainee who was properly arrested and is awaiting trial. That detainee has recourse to due process protections, not protection against unreasonable seizures after a lawful seizure has occurred. Since Brooks has shown no defect in his actual arrest, he has made no claim under the Fourth Amendment. 10 We affirm the summary judgment for the Cross-Appellees on Brooks's Fourth Amendment claims. 11 43