Olaf Childress v. L. P. Walker, et al., No. 13-12425 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-12425 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-12425 Non-Argument Calendar _____________________ District Court No. 2:12-cv-00117-MEF-SRW OLAF CHILDRESS, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus L. P. WALKER, in his individual capacity, O. V. CHAVEZ, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellants, CITY OF MONTGOMERY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MONTGOMBERY COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (February 5, 2014) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and HILL, Circuit Judges. Case: 13-12425 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Olaf Childress brought this action against L.P. Walker and O.V. Chavez under 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1983 and 1985 for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights in connection with his arrest for disorderly conduct while handing out political pamphlets. Childress also alleged several state law claims. The defendants are the police officers who arrested Childress and who claim qualified immunity from this lawsuit. They assert that they had, at the very least, arguable probable cause to arrest Childress, and, therefore, did not violate any of his clearly established constitutional rights. The district court disagreed, however, holding that Childress alleged and the undisputed evidence supports the conclusion that he was entitled to be where he was at the time of his arrest. Furthermore, the district court noted the total absence from the record of any evidence that Childress was forcing anyone to take his pamphlets, was using loud, abusive, or profane language, was making threats or obscene gestures, or was blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, based upon the record at this time, the district court held that the officers did not have arguable probable 2 Case: 13-12425 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 Page: 3 of 3 cause to arrest Childress and denied their request for qualified immunity as to his Fourth and First Amendment claims. 1 The officers brought this appeal of the district court s denial of qualified immunity on Childress First and Fourth Amendment claims, arguing that they did have arguable probable cause to effect Childress arrest. Childress has failed to file a brief in response to defendants appeal. We have considered the effect of this failure and would reverse if appellants had made a showing of prima facie error. However, our review of the record and the district court s thoughtful opinion leads us to conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be AFFIRMED. 1 The district court correctly held that Childress First Amendment claim depends upon whether his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
