green
Positive treatment
Hot · 47 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 6×
78.0 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2017–2020 ·
…he plaintiff must affirmatively show that the defendants tainted the intermediary's decision.
at p. 555
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Redding v. Swanton
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he plaintiff must affirmatively show that the defendants tainted the intermediary's decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harper v. Stroman
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he plaintiff must affirmatively show that the defendants tainted the intermediary's decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Miller v. Stroman
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he plaintiff must affirmatively show that the defendants tainted the intermediary's decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mitchell v. Stroman
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he plaintiff must affirmatively show that the defendants tainted the intermediary's decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Holcomb v. McCraw
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he plaintiff must affirmatively show that the defendants tainted the intermediary's decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Franklin v. Beeville City
the constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maurice Williams v. Town of Clinton, et al.
Police Dep’t., 824 F.3d 548, 555 (5th Cir. 2016); Hand, 838 F.2d at 1427 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James Carl Thompson v. Conner Brown, et al.
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sessanga v. City of DeSoto
For this exception to the independent-intermediary doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must plead facts that support the inference that “the official’s malicious motive led the official to withhold relevant information or otherwise misdirect the independent intermediary by omission or commission.” Id. at 689 (citing Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t., 824 F.3d 548, 555 (5th Cir. 2016)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Archangel v. City of Houston
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
West v. Hawkins
In addition, “[Fifth Circuit] precedents have applied this rule even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the arrestee was never convicted of any crime.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. City of Midland
In addition, to satisfy the taint exception, “omissions of exculpatory information must be knowing.” Buehler, 824 F.3d at 555 (cleaned up) (citing Cuadra, 626 F.3d at 813–14).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Thomas
Accordingly, Detective Thomas must show an “intermediate’s decision [broke] the causal chain and insulate[d]” her. 48 As we have held, [T]he chain of causation between the officer’s conduct and the unlawful arrest “is broken only where all the facts are presented to the grand jury, or other independent intermediary where the malicious motive of the law enforcement officials _____________________ 46 See Green, 734 F. Supp. 3d at 558. 47 Trevino, 79 F.4th at 531 (quoting Buehler v. City of Austin, 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016)). 48 Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185, 1193 (5th Cir…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Acy v. Unidentified Officers
And, so, “a properly secured arrest warrant or grand jury indictment will shield a defendant who has committed or initiated a false arrest.” Wilson v. Stroman, 33 F.4th 202 , 208 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2016)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prather v. City of Conroe
(2×)
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep't, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyons v. Smith
Under the Independent Intermediary Doctrine, “even an officer who acted with malice . . . will not be liable if the facts supporting the warrant or indictment are put before an impartial intermediary such as a magistrate or grand jury, for that intermediary’s ‘independent decision’ breaks the causal chain and insulates the initiating party.” Buehler v. City of Austin, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1427 (Sth Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Frias v. Hernandez
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Petty
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheriff v. City of Jackson, Mississippi
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dept., 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016) (additional citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Trevino v. Iden
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The independent-intermediary doctrine “becomes relevant when . . . a plaintiff’s claims depend on a lack of probable cause.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Slaughter v. Torres
Appx. at 304 (citing Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep't, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Union County Mississippi
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep't, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (Sth Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McMurry v. Brunner
(2×)
Given the asymmetry of information presented to the grand jury and information known to Brunner at the time of the alleged 16 Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A party who inadequately briefs an issue is considered to have abandoned the claim.”). 17 Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 18 Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1428 (5th Cir. 1988). 19 Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016). 20 Hand, 838 F.2d at 1428 . 21 Brunner b…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. Crowe
See, e.g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555 (1967); Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t., 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Villarreal v. City of Laredo
II The majority opinion denies the defendants qualified immunity on the First and Fourth Amendment claims in spite of the fact that a neutral magistrate issued the warrants for Villareal’s arrest. “[W]hether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly 44 ROA.159. 45 Ante, at 11. 44 Case: 20-40359 Document: 00516431109 Page: 45 Date Filed: 08/12/2022 No. 20-40359 unlawful official action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayhew v. Johnson
Pursuant to the independent intermediary doctrine, “even an officer who acted with malice . . . will not be liable if the facts supporting the warrant or indictment are put before an impartial intermediary such as a magistrate or a grand jury, for that intermediary’s ‘independent’ decision ‘breaks the causal chain’ and insulates the initiating party.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dept., 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1427 (5th Cir. 1988)) (additional citation omitted; emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nwoke v. Ramirez
This bar applies “even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the arrestee was never convicted of any crime.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzales v. Hunt County Sheriffs Department
“Thus, a properly secured arrest warrant . . . will shield a defendant who has committed or initiated a false arrest.” Wilson, 33 F.4th at 208 (quoting Buehler v. City of Austin, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schambach v. Mandeville City
(2×)
Under the independent intermediary doctrine, “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, insulating the initiating party.”121 Notably, arresting officers “are shielded from liability by the independent intermediary doctrine . . . even if the warrant application was sought and granted after the arrest took place.”122 That shield is not absolute, however, for “officers who deliberately or recklessly provide false, material information for us…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Polnac v. City of Sulphur Springs
(2×)
The independent-intermediary doctrine “becomes relevant when—as here—a plaintiff’s claims depend on a lack of probable cause to arrest him.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t., 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016) (first citing Cuadra v. Hous.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. Stroman
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Poullard v. Jones
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The doctrine applies even if the officer acted with malice, “even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the arrestee was never convicted of a crime,” so long as “the facts supporting the warrant or indictment are put before an impartial intermediary.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (footnote omitted) (quoting Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1427 (5th Cir. 1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Slaughter v. Torres
Appx. at 304 (citing Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Buehler v. Dear
(2×)
But we have “consistently applied the doctrine in published opinions”79 and are bound by those holdings.80 Buehler attempts to sidestep our precedent, suggesting that those cases’ underpinnings were called into doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Malley v. Briggs.81 There, in a footnote, the Court “conceded that the appellant police officer’s argument that he could not have proximately caused a defendant’s unlawful arrest by filing an affidavit unsupported by probable cause was not before it on 76 Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on other gro…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sloan v. Cutler
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 5 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Poullard v. Jones
The doctrine applies even if the officer acted with malice, even if the intermediary’s actions occurred post-arrest, and even if the arrestee was never convicted of a crime, so long as “the facts supporting - 11 - the warrant or indictment are put before an impartial intermediary.” Id. at 497 (quoting Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Polnac v. City of Sulphur Springs
(2×)
The independent-intermediary doctrine “becomes relevant when—as here—a plaintiff’s claims depend on a lack of probable cause to arrest him.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t., 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016) (first citing Cuadra v. Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. City of Hattiesburg
“Even an officer who acted with malice . . . will not be liable if the facts supporting the warrant or indictment are put before an impartial intermediary such as a magistrate or a grand jury, for that intermediary’s independent decision breaks the casual chain and insulates the initiating party.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1427 (5th Cir. 1988)) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Poullard v. Jones
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Because any false-arrest claim brought against the Mayor is also premised on the same conduct as that of Poullard’s false-arrest claim against the City, Poullard’s official capacity claim against the Mayor is dismissed as well. -27- But under the independent intermediary doctrine, “even an officer who acted with malice will not be liable [for false arrest] if the facts supporting the warrant or indictment are put before an impartial intermediary such as a magistrate or a grand jury, for that intermediary’s independent [probable-cause] decision breaks the causal chain and insulates the …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thornton v. Lymous
Doc. 23 at 12. 205 Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1427 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Smith v. Gonzalez, 670 F.2d 522, 526 (5th Cir. 1982)). 206 Id. at 1428. 207 Anderson v. City of McComb, Miss., 539 F. App’x 385, 387 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted). 208 Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 555 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Cuadra v. Houston Ind. Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yager v. Stroman
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly applied this rule “even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the arrestee was never convicted of any crime.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stallings v. Chavez
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly “applied this rule even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the arrestee was never convicted of any crime.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kyle Shaw v. Karnes County, Texas
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Under McLin, if the plaintiff shows that the defendant tainted the intermediary’s decision-making process, the defendant can be liable. 16 But the plaintiff has to show that the defendant maliciously withheld relevant information or otherwise misdirected the intermediary. 17 In McLin, the plaintiff alleged a series of collective and individual meetings, specific plots to pursue criminal charges, and various flawed arrest-warrant drafts. 18 Here, the independent-intermediary doctrine applies, but the exception doesn’t. 12 McLin v. Ard, 866 F.3d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Deville v. M…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Israel Curtis v. Donald Sowell
And “[o]ur precedents have applied this rule even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the 3 Case: 18-20164 Document: 00514838207 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/15/2019 No. 18-20164 arrestee was never convicted of any crime.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Israel Curtis v. Donald Sowell
And “[o]ur precedents have applied this rule even if the independent intermediary’s action occurred after the arrest, and even if the 3 Case: 18-20164 Document: 00514776646 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2018 No. 18-20164 arrestee was never convicted of any crime.” Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Royce McLin v. Jason Ard
(2×)
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t., 824 F.3d 548, 555 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Hand, 838 F.2d at 1427 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Lock v. Cindia Torres
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited "see"
Frias v. Hernandez
See Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gonzalez v. Trevino
See Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that the independent-intermediary doctrine only “becomes relevant when . . . a plaintiff’s claims depend on a lack of probable cause to arrest him”).
cited
Cited "see"
Ragsdale v. Mississippi State
See Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Saul MOLINA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Saul MOLINA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
13-40324.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 31, 2016.
Paula Camille Offenhauser, Renata Ann Gowie, Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s' Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Stewart, Jones, Higginson.
Published | Direct Criminal
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court, No. 14-8913, United States v. Molina-Martinez. The Supreme Court reversed our affirmance of the district court’s sentence of Molina-Martinez and remanded this case to us for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s sentence of Molina-Martinez and REMAND this case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas for resentencing consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.