Case Explained: Amberley Lambert v. City of Onalaska, Texas; Tammie Heeth, Officer Defendants—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-13

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Tammie Heeth and the City of Onalaska, holding that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate Amberley Lambert’s clearly established rights under the First or Fourth Amendments. Regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, the court applied the probable cause standard, concluding that Officer Heeth had probable cause to stop and arrest Lambert for violating Texas Transportation Code § 542.501 by willfully refusing a lawful order to turn around, as well as for resisting arrest under Texas Penal Code § 38.03(a) when Lambert tensed her body to prevent removal from the vehicle. The court rejected Lambert’s argument that the arrest was unlawful because resistance occurred after an initial seizure, noting that probable cause existed independently before the resistance began. Regarding the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, the court applied the framework established in *Nieves v. Bartlett*, which requires a plaintiff to plead and prove the absence of probable cause unless they can satisfy a narrow exception by presenting objective evidence that similarly situated individuals who did not engage in protected speech were not arrested. The court found that Lambert failed to meet this burden because her conduct—driving toward an officer after being ordered to stop—is not endemic or benign like the jaywalking example in *Nieves*, and she provided no objective evidence of similarly situated comparators. Consequently, the existence of probable cause defeated the retaliation claim regardless of the timing relative to Lambert’s prior complaint. The practical consequence is that the judgment for the defendants stands, and Lambert’s civil rights lawsuit is dismissed without further proceedings on the merits.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.