“On appeal, Birkley does not contest the district court’s reasons for dismissing the case, including its rationale that Birkley failed to state a claim because he conceded at his preliminary hearing that the police had probable cause for their actions. ‘Probable cause is an absolute bar to a claim of false arrest asserted under the Fourth Amendment and section 1983.’ … Because Birkley disputes neither his concession nor the court’s reliance on it to dismiss his suit, he has waived any argument, including one about judicial estoppel, …, opposing the court’s conclusion that his prior concession in state court defeats this case. … In his appellate brief, Birkley contends only that his arrest was invalid because the arrest warrant did not observe that he is a ‘Moorish National’ and it was not signed by an ‘Article III judge.’ These contentions are frivolous, see, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(4); 4(a)-(b), and require no further comment.” Birkley v. Eade, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 374 (7th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025).*

“As to whether a clearly established constitutional right exists, the Court finds, and Defendants do not dispute, that Plaintiff enjoys a clearly established right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and this includes the right to be from arrest without probable cause, and ‘the right to be free from searches [and seizures] predicated on an officer’s intentional or reckless submission of false statements in a warrant affidavit.’ … [¶] However, when considering whether Lawson violated such a constitutional right, the Court is left wondering what facts and evidence of record support Plaintiff’s claim, as he has failed to cite to the appropriate test for challenging qualified immunity based on a judicially signed arrest warrant, failed to cite to any evidence of record whatsoever, and failed to cite to any legal authority to support his position. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to even allege any specific false statements or material omissions or other facts relevant to this Court’s analysis.” Helton v. Whitley Cty. Fiscal Court, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2327 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 7, 2025).*