United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 13, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30362
Summary Calendar
EUCKLE LEE HUNTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MONROE; ET. AL.,
Defendants,
JOE STEWART, Individually and as Chief of Police;
JIMMY FRIED; MIKE ROWLAND; MICHAEL CALLOWAY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:01-CV-642
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Euckle Lee Hunter appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Chief Joe Stewart, Lieutenant Jimmy
Fried, Detective Mike Rowland, and Detective Michael Calloway
(hereinafter, “defendants”) and the dismissal with prejudice of his
false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims
against the defendants in their individual capacities. We do not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-30362
-2-
consider Hunter’s argument that the district court erred in
striking his opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment motion
from the record. We assume for purposes of this appeal that
Hunter’s opposition was considered by the district court.
After conducting a de novo review of the record, we conclude
that there was probable cause to arrest Hunter. Cousin v. Small,
325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003); Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d
325, 328 (5th Cir. 1998); see also LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 14:24 (West
1997), 14:134 (West 2004), 40:979 (West 2001). Because Hunter
concedes he did not immediately report the incident at the bus
station and given the facts surrounding his other meetings with the
confidential informant, he has not shown that his phone call to
Lieutenant Fried negated Detective Rowland’s conclusion that there
was probable cause to arrest him for being a principal to a drug
deal and for malfeasance in office.
The fact that Hunter did not follow the confidential informant
to the informant’s place of business after the informant picked up
the package at the bus station was apparent from Detective
Rowland’s affidavit in support of the state warrant. In addition,
contrary to Hunter’s argument, our determination on direct appeal
that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Hunter was guilty of attempted possession with intent to distribute
cocaine did not equate to a determination that there was no
probable cause for an arrest on such a charge. See United States
v. Hunter, No. 99-30091 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999). Accordingly, we
No. 04-30362
-3-
affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s false arrest and
false imprisonment claims.
We have held that a claim of malicious prosecution standing
alone does not violate the United States Constitution. Castellano
v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir.2003) (en banc). The
district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s malicious prosecution claim
is therefore also affirmed. Hunter’s conspiracy claim fails
because he has not shown an actual violation of his rights or an
agreement by the defendants to commit an illegal act. See Arsenaux
v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.