Case: 20-30629 Document: 00515905726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 18, 2021
No. 20-30629
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Johnny H. Thornton,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Corey M. Lymous; New Orleans City,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CV-12287
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Johnny Thornton appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim against New Orleans Police Department (NOPD)
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30629 Document: 00515905726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-30629
Sergeant Corey Lymous for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. We
affirm.
I
In August 2018, three juvenile detainees complained that they were
physically abused in separate incidents by Thornton, a supervisor at the
detention center where they were incarcerated. NOPD Sergeant Lymous
investigated these complaints by observing independent forensic interviews
of the three victims, interviewing Thornton, and reviewing medical records,
pertinent video footage, and written statements by staff eyewitnesses.
Lymous then submitted a sworn four-page affidavit seeking an arrest warrant
for Thornton.
In the affidavit, Lymous attested to what he observed in the forensic
interviews, video footage, medical records, and witness statements. He
certified there was probable cause to believe that Thornton committed one
count each of second-degree cruelty to a juvenile,1 simple battery,2 and
malfeasance in office.3 Based on Lymous’s affidavit, a magistrate judge issued
a warrant for Thornton’s arrest, and Thornton was briefly detained in the
Orleans Parish Jail before posting bond. Months later, a Grand Jury of the
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court returned a “no true bill” on each
charge against him.
Thornton subsequently brought suit against Lymous, the City of New
Orleans, the detainees, and their guardians. In addition to various state-law
claims against Defendants, Thornton asserted a § 1983 claim against
1
See La. Rev. Stat. § 14:93.2.3.
2
See id. § 14:35.
3
See id. § 14:134.
2
Case: 20-30629 Document: 00515905726 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-30629
Lymous, alleging that Lymous violated his Fourth Amendment rights by
submitting a falsified affidavit that led to his false arrest. The district court
dismissed Thornton’s § 1983 claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
his remaining state-law claims. Thornton appeals.
II
This Court reviews a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepting “all
well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.”4 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”5 A plausible complaint
“‘does not need detailed factual allegations,’ but must provide the plaintiff’s
grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when
assumed to be true ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’”6
III
A constitutional claim for false arrest “requires a showing of no
probable cause.”7 Generally, “if facts supporting an arrest are placed before
an independent intermediary such as a magistrate or grand jury, the
intermediary’s decision breaks the chain of causation for false arrest,
4
Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th
Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
5
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
6
Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555).
7
Arizmendi v. Gabbert, 919 F.3d 891, 897 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
3
Case: 20-30629 Document: 00515905726 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-30629
insulating the initiating party.”8 However, the initiating officer may still be
liable for false arrest if he taints the deliberations of the intermediary by
“deliberately or recklessly provid[ing] false, material information for use in
an affidavit” or “mak[ing] knowing and intentional omissions that result in a
warrant being issued without probable cause.”9
Thornton fails to allege facts demonstrating that Lymous tainted the
magistrate’s finding of probable cause. Several of his allegations suggest that
Lymous knew that the victim-detainees were lying because their accounts
were disputed. But such “speculation from the stated facts” need not be
considered true.10 As for his remaining allegations, he fails to show that his
complained of fabrications and omissions were material to the magistrate’s
probable-cause determination because the key facts supporting probable
cause for the charges against him would be unaffected by reconstructing the
affidavit with “those errors and omissions [] removed.”11 Without showing
that affiant Lymous’s allegedly misleading representations were “necessary
8
McLin v. Ard, 866 F.3d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
9
See Anokwuru v. City of Houston, 990 F.3d 956, 963–64 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Melton v. Phillips, 875 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 2017) (en
banc)); see also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155–56 (1978) (holding that a Fourth
Amendment violation occurs where (1) an affiant, in support of the warrant, includes a
“false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth” and
(2) “the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause”).
10
See Marks v. Hudson, 933 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Guidry v. Bank of
LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[C]onclusory allegations and unwarranted
deductions of fact are not admitted as true by a motion to dismiss.” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)).
11
See Winfrey v. Rogers, 901 F.3d 483, 494–95 (5th Cir. 2018).
4
Case: 20-30629 Document: 00515905726 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-30629
to the finding of probable cause,” Thornton’s Fourth Amendment claim
fails.12 We affirm.
12
See Franks, 438 U.S. at 156.
5