holding no cause of action stated against officers for arrest without unreasonable force under valid warrant issued pursuant to a properly con stituted grand jury indictment, not reaching immunity question
How later courts described this case
- holding no cause of action stated against officers for arrest without unreasonable force under valid warrant issued pursuant to a properly con stituted grand jury indictment, not reaching immunity question
- “It is clear from a reading of Bivens that a federal action for damages must be premised on the unconstitutional conduct of the officers.”
- "... it could be advanced that, where a case is in summary judgment posture, the allegations of the complaint and answer should be deemed amended to conform to the proof under [Rule] 15(b) before a court determines whether to grant judgment.”
- "[I]t has long been settled that an indictment by a properly constituted grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause and provides the authority for an arrest warrant to issue.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)
556 F.2d 1185, 1991 (5th Cir. 1977), abrogated on other grounds by Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335
The opinion
BROWN, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I concur in Judge Goldberg’s dissent, except that in part V, Good Faith Defense I do not embrace the extended factual analysis and the characterizations placed upon some of the supposed responses by the agents, some of which come to the brink of declarations as a matter of law. I predict that this case will come back to us and hence the Trial Court and perhaps another appeal. I wish to leave myself free to determine the issue without the sometime dramatic embellishments.