U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 25-10954

Comichi v. Pethel (5th Cir.)

Status: Pending: reversed in part on appeal and remanded

Background

The plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from his arrest. The district court dismissed all of the claims on qualified-immunity grounds, and the plaintiff appealed. Brandon J. Grable represents the plaintiff-appellant.

The Issue

Whether the arresting officer had probable cause for the Failure to Identify and Interference with Public Duties charges, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the false-arrest and related claims.

Status/Outcome

On June 23, 2026, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the false-arrest claim against the arresting officer. Viewing the bodycam footage in the plaintiff’s favor, it held that no reasonable officer could have concluded there was probable cause for a Failure to Identify charge, and it found no probable cause for the Interference with Public Duties charge.

The court vacated the dismissal of the failure-to-intervene and malicious-prosecution claims against two other officers and remanded them for consideration on the merits. It affirmed the dismissal of the unlawful-search and unlawful-seizure claims.

The case has been remanded and remains pending. The opinion is unpublished and is not binding precedent except in limited circumstances (5th Cir. R. 47.5). It is not a final judgment on the merits.

Key Filings

• Fifth Circuit opinion (June 23, 2026, PDF, govinfo.gov)

Last updated: Oct 14, 2026

Disclaimer

This matter is pending. This page summarizes the public record only and is not a prediction of any outcome. Past results disclaimer: Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own facts and law. Results described depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Client testimonials are not a guarantee of any result. This page is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

← All case updates · Case results