Summary Calendar NORMAN MAPES v. Jameson Bishop; Patrick Wenneman; Ken Stelly; City of Baton Rouge

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-30559
Summary Calendar
NORMAN MAPES
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JAMESON BISHOP; PATRICK WENNEMAN; KEN STELLY; CITY OF
BATON ROUGE
Defendants-Appellees
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN MAPES
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
BOBBY SIMPSON; PATRICK ENGLADE; CHRIS CRANFORD; MIKE
PONDER; CARL JACKSON; DEIDRE ROBERT; VICKY JONES; CITY OF
BATON ROUGE
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 22, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-30559
2
PER CURIAM:
We sua sponte recall the mandate, withdraw the prior panel opinion,
Mapes v. Bishop, No. 06-30559, 2007 WL 1733069, (5th Cir. June 15, 2007), in
its entirety, and substitute the following:
Norman Mapes appeals the dismissal of two consolidated civil rights
actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged that police officers,
the police chief, the City of Baton Rouge (“City”), and employees of the parish
attorney’s and prosecuting attorney’s offices violated his constitutional rights by
falsely arresting him and maliciously prosecuting him on a charge of soliciting
a prostitute.
In No. 3:03-CV-67, the District Court held that the applicable one-year
Louisiana statute of limitations for personal injury actions barred Mapes’s false
arrest claim against the City and police officer defendants Jameson Bishop,
Patrick Wenneman, and Ken Stelly. We review the District Court’s conclusion
that Mapes’s claim is time-barred de novo. Price v. City of San Antonio, Tex.,
431 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2005).
The District Court held that the statute of limitations began to run when
Mapes was arrested on April 13, 2001, and, as a result, expired before Mapes
filed his complaint on January 27, 2003. Mapes’s sole argument on appeal is
that the District Court erred in dismissing the false arrest claim against these
defendants because his false arrest claim did not accrue until the prosecution
terminated in his favor on January 25, 2002. Neither the District Court nor
Mapes were correct.
The “statute of limitations upon a § 1983 claim seeking damages for a false
arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by
criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained
pursuant to legal process.” Wallace v. Kato, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1100 (2007). To the
extent that Wallace conflicts with our decision in Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-30559
3
196 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that a false arrest cause of action accrues when the
criminal prosecution terminates in favor of the accused), Wallace abrogates
Brandley.
Mapes filed his § 1983 complaint exactly one year after the criminal
prosecution terminated in his favor. The date on which Mapes became detained
pursuant to legal process does not appear in the record. It is difficult to see how
Mapes’s complaint could be timely because the date on which he was detained
pursuant to legal process must have preceded the date on which proceedings
terminated. Nevertheless, we vacate and remand to the District Court to
determine the date on which Mapes was detained pursuant to legal process.
Mapes briefs no argument concerning the claims that were dismissed in
No. 3:04-CV-443. He also fails to brief any claim in No. 3:03-CV-67 other than
his false arrest claim. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief
arguments in order to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). Accordingly, Mapes’s remaining claims
are effectively abandoned. Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.
VACATED AND REMANDED AS TO FALSE-ARREST CLAIM IN
NO. 3:03-CV-67; AFFIRMED AS TO ALL OTHER CLAIMS.

-- 3 of 3 --