Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Bourrage alleged that Deputy Everette “Trey” Fox III tackled him, touched his genitalia, forced him into a patrol vehicle’s K9 compartment, and injured him during a July 2019 arrest. In September 2024, Bourrage sued Fox under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also sued then-Sheriff Billy Sollie for allegedly failing to train and supervise officers properly.
The district court granted summary judgment to Fox and Sollie, concluding that Bourrage’s claims were untimely and that the limitations period should not be tolled. Appearing pro se on appeal, Bourrage invoked malicious-prosecution accrual principles and argued that missing video, audio, and dispatch records showed spoliation. He also contended that the district court should have permitted additional discovery concerning municipal-liability assets.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Bourrage had not pleaded a malicious-prosecution claim in the district court, so the court treated that theory as forfeited because he raised it for the first time on appeal. His spoliation and discovery arguments did not undermine the judgment because the district court dismissed the claims as untimely, not for insufficient factual support.
The court separately admonished Bourrage for submitting at least three filings containing fabricated or inaccurate authorities, quotations, and record references, despite prior warnings. It emphasized that using generative AI is not inherently improper, but every filer—including a pro se litigant—must verify that cited authorities, quotations, and factual assertions are genuine and accurate. The court warned that future filings citing nonexistent authorities could result in dismissal, monetary sanctions, or filing restrictions.
Key Takeaways
- A litigant generally cannot obtain appellate review of a claim first raised on appeal.
- Arguments about spoliation or additional discovery do not defeat summary judgment when they do not address the dispositive statute-of-limitations ground.
- Litigants remain personally responsible for checking AI-assisted filings and may face sanctions for fabricated citations or quotations.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that appellants must directly confront the ground on which the district court entered judgment. New legal theories and discovery complaints will not secure reversal when the operative claims remain time-barred.
The opinion also adds to appellate warnings about unverified generative-AI output. Although the court imposed no sanction here, it expressly identified possible consequences for future inaccurate filings, including dismissal, monetary penalties, and filing restrictions.