Curtis, et al v. Anthony, et al, No. 11-20906 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs challenged defendants' reliance on dog-scent lineups, which Defendant Pikett conducted and which the municipalities used to arrest, charge, and hold plaintiffs. Winfrey v. State held that inculpatory evidence obtained from dog-scent lineups could raise a strong suspicion of guilt, but was merely supportive and, when used alone or as primary evidence, was legally insufficient to support a conviction. For the same reasons provided in Winfrey, the court affirmed summary judgment as to Defendants Wright, Fort Bend County, the City of Houston, and the unknown HPD and Fort Bend County employees, on qualified immunity grounds and for failure to establish municipal liability. The court held, however, that Winfrey was distinguishable as to the claims against Defendants Stivers, Anthony, Chappell, and Pikett. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to those defendants.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 26, 2013.
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.