Filed: Dec. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14680 December 30, 2005 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00659-CV-F-S CHRISTOPHER STOVALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLARK ALLUMS, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, THE CITY OF DOTHAN, ALABAMA, a muncipality, Defendant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _ (December 30,
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14680 December 30, 2005 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00659-CV-F-S CHRISTOPHER STOVALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLARK ALLUMS, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, THE CITY OF DOTHAN, ALABAMA, a muncipality, Defendant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _ (December 30, 2..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14680 December 30, 2005 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN ________________________ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00659-CV-F-S CHRISTOPHER STOVALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLARK ALLUMS, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, THE CITY OF DOTHAN, ALABAMA, a muncipality, Defendant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama _________________________ (December 30, 2005) Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity stemming from the defendant officer’s arrest of the plaintiff for disorderly conduct. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we are required to do at this stage of the proceedings, we conclude that no officer reasonably could have believed that the plaintiff had violated the state code provision prohibiting disorderly conduct. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
