Mitchell, et al v. City of Jackson, et al

*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th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
F I L E D
March 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60227
Summary Calendar
JAMES T. MITCHELL, JR; MATTHEW WEGHORST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
CITY OF JACKSON MISSISSIPPI; ROBERT MOORE, individually and in his official
capacity as duly commissioned and appointed Police Chief of the City of
Jackson, Mississippi; KENT DANIELS, individually and in his official capacity as
a duly commissioned Police Officer of the City of Jackson, Mississippi; NORMAN
PRESSON, individually and in his official capacity as a duly commissioned Arson
Investigator of the City of Jackson, Mississippi; VERNON HUGHES, individually
and in his official capacity as a duly commissioned Arson Investigator of the City
of Jackson, Mississippi,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:04-CV-574)
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

2The court also dismissed Appellants’ state law claims, a ruling they do not appeal.
2
Appellants brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim below, alleging their Fourth and
Fifth Amendment rights were violated because they were arrested and detained
without probable cause. Plaintiffs also raised pendant state law claims. Appellees
moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that the undisputed facts
established probable cause and that the suit was barred by qualified immunity. The
district court granted Defendants’ motion, finding the arrest and detention
supported by probable cause and holding that, in the alternative, Appellants’ claims
were barred by qualified immunity.2
Based on our de novo review, we agree with the district court that the
undisputed facts establish that probable cause existed as a matter of law. Probable
cause exists when the facts and circumstances as known to the officers at the time
would “warrant a prudent man [to] believe[] that the [Appellants] had committed or
[were] committing an offense.” Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 1992).
It is irrelevant that the Appellants were not ultimately convicted. See Morris v. Dillard
Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 754 (5th Cir. 2001).
Because we find Appellants’ arrest supported by probable cause, we need not
decide whether Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --