Johnson v. Stephen F Austin St

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
1 The dismissal of claims on other grounds is not before us, and we
express no opinion in that regard.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 11, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-40391
WILLIE LEE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY; ET AL,
Defendants,
TONY HILL, in his individual capacity;
SUZANNE CARPENTER, in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 9:01-CV-317)
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:*
This is an appeal by two Texas police officers from the
district court’s order denying them qualified immunity from claims
that the officers denied plaintiff his right under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution to be arrested only
upon probable cause and related state law claims.1

-- 1 of 2 --

2 Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 942 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
2
We agree with the district court that there are genuine issues
of material fact regarding the availability of qualified immunity
to these defendants for violation of the Fourth Amendment pursued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the state law claims. We dismiss the
appeal of those claims. To the extent plaintiff attempted to state
a claim of malicious prosecution under § 1983 upon these facts and
the order of the district court allowed the claim of malicious
prosecution to proceed, we must reverse. As we recently explained
in an opinion filed after the district court’s order:
“Malicious prosecution” standing alone is no violation of
the United States Constitution, and ... to proceed under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 such a claim must rest upon a denial of
rights secured under federal and not state law.2
Plaintiff’s claims of false arrest and detention in violation
of the Fourth Amendment are the sole federal claims. The district
court has jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §
1367. The district court may choose to require plaintiff to amend
his pleadings separating his state and federal claims. We express
no opinion regarding the merits of the claims before us.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --