In Neives v. Bartlett, this court held that probable cause is not an absolute bar to a First Amendment retaliatory- arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the no-probable cause requirement does not apply when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been. In Lozman v. City of Riveriera Beach, Florida, this court decided that probable cause does not bar a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to a "unique class of retaliatory claims." The question presented is: 1. Does the district court's dismissal of claims, including First Amendment retaliatory- arrest and prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on probable cause warrant reversal ?

Does the district court's dismissal of claims, including First Amendment retaliatory-arrest and prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on probable cause warrant reversal?