Baker v. City of McKinney
| Citation | 571 F.Supp.3d 625 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-00176 |
| Parties | Vicki BAKER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Jeffrey H. Redfern, Suranjan Sen, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff.
Edwin Armstrong Price Voss, Jr., Michael Lee Martin, Brown & Hofmeister, Richardson, TX, for Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Defendant City of McKinney's Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #6). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Defendant's motion should be DENIED .
This case arises from the uncompensated damages to Vicki Baker's ("Baker") home following the City of McKinney Police Department's (the "Department") standoff with an armed fugitive. To provide necessary context regarding the nature of this lawsuit, the Court lays out the pertinent facts, which are essentially undisputed.
On July 25, 2020, Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook ("Cook"), called the Department from a public location to report that an armed fugitive, later identified as Wesley Little ("Little"), had entered Baker's house with a teenage girl and had requested to hide his car in the garage.1 When Department officers arrived at Cook's location, Cook provided the officers both the code to enter the house and the garage door opener. Department officers then went to Baker's home where Little remained in hiding with the teenage girl.
Upon arrival, Department officers surrounded the house and attempted to negotiate with Little. Little released the fifteen-year-old girl unharmed, but the girl informed Department officers that Little possessed seven firearms and that he refused to leave the house alive.
Following unsuccessful negotiations, Department officers then attempted to draw Little out of the house through several forceful tactics, including the use of tear gas. Despite the Department's efforts, Little would not leave the home. Department officers then forcefully entered the home by breaking down both the front and garage door and running over the backyard fence with a tank-like vehicle known as a BearCat. Upon entry, Department officers found Little had taken his own life.
On March 3, 2021, Baker filed suit against the City of McKinney (the "City") for violations of the Takings Clauses of both the United States and Texas Constitutions. Baker alleges that extensive damage to her house resulted from the Department's standoff with Little. Specifically, Baker claims that: (1) every window needed replacing; (2) the house had to be cleaned by a hazmat remediation team due to the tear gas; (3) various appliances were destroyed; (4) the front and garage door needed replacing (5) tear gas cannisters had destroyed parts of the drywall; and (6) carpets, blinds, and ceiling fans needed replacing.
On April 14, 2021, the City filed the present motion (Dkt. #6). On April 28, 2021, Baker filed a response (Dkt. #9). On May 5, 2021, the City filed a reply (Dkt. #10). On June 21, 2021, Baker filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #14). On June 25, 2021, the City filed a Response to [Baker's] Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #16).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the district court has neither statutory nor constitutional power to adjudicate the case. Home Builders Ass'n of Miss. v. City of Madison , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). If a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the Court will consider the jurisdictional attack under Rule 12(b)(1) before addressing any attack on the legal merits. Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
In deciding the motion, the Court may consider "(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the [C]ourt's resolution of disputed facts."
Lane v. Halliburton , 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barrera-Montenegro v. United States , 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996) ). The Court will accept as true all well-pleaded allegations set forth in the complaint and construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Truman v. United States , 26 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1994). Once a defendant files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and challenges jurisdiction, the party invoking jurisdiction has the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp. , 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980).
The City asks the Court to dismiss Baker's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Dkt. #6 at p. 8). The City argues "[t]he Complaint fails to establish the existence of a federal question" (Dkt. #6 at p. 10). Specifically, the City contends "[t]here is no federal court decision at either the United States Supreme Court or in the federal Courts of Appeals which has recognized such a cause of action establishing Baker's claims as one asserting a federal question under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments" (Dkt. #6 at p. 11). Further, the City asserts that "[t]he Complaint fails to establish supplemental jurisdiction" over Baker's state law claim (Dkt. #6 at p. 16).
Baker's response does not specifically address subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, Baker premises the Court's retention of the case on the plausibility of her takings claims under both federal and Texas law.
After considering both the motion and the response, it is clear the City conflates the appropriate Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) analyses and, accordingly, rendered Baker responsible for responding to the 12(b)(1) argument with the 12(b)(6) plausibility analysis. Because "whether the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and whether the plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted are distinct questions[,]" Emp. Ins. of Wausau v. Suwannee River Spa Lines, Inc. , 866 F.2d 752, 759 (5th Cir. 1989), the plausibility and viability of Baker's claims become relevant only upon a finding of subject matter jurisdiction. In other terms, "courts should analyze their own authority to hear a case as a separate matter from whether that case involves a viable claim." In re KSRP, Ltd. , 809 F.3d 263, 267 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, "a complaint that alleges the existence of a federal question establishes jurisdiction, even though the court ultimately decides that the plaintiff's federal rights were not violated." Mobil Oil Corp. v. Kelley , 493 F.2d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).
Under the appropriate analysis, the City's argument that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear a Fifth Amendment takings claim is meritless in all aspects. Baker invokes the Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution ... of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Baker brings a federal takings claim under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego , 450 U.S. 621, 623 n.1, 101 S.Ct. 1287, 67 L.Ed.2d 551 (1981) (). Thus, under the plain language of § 1331, a federal cause of action exists on the face of Baker's Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Recent Supreme Court precedent further bolsters this determination. In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pa. , the Court held "a government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and that property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under § 1983 at that time." ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2177, 204 L.Ed.2d 558 (2019). Baker did exactly this—upon the City's refusal to compensate her for damages arising from the Department's standoff with Little, she filed a § 1983 action.
The City asserts that neither the Supreme Court nor a single Court of Appeals has recognized this cause of action "as one asserting federal question under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments." (Dkt. #6 at p. 11). Not so. Rather, neither the Supreme Court nor any federal appellate court in the country has dismissed a claim of this type for the district court's lack of federal question jurisdiction. This includes the courts presiding over certain cases the City cites in support of its erroneous assertion. See, e.g. , Johnson v. Manitowoc Cnty. , 635 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011) (); Lech v. Jackson , 791 F. Appx. 711 (10th Cir. 2019) (same); Knick , 139 S. Ct. 2162 (same); John Corp. v. City of Hous. , 214 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2000) (same); Yawn v. Dorchester Cnty. , 1 F.4th 191 (4th Cir. 2021) (same).
Because Baker's likelihood of recovery on her claim is not a proper consideration when assessing subject matter jurisdiction, the City's argument that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to Baker's inability to prevail is unavailing. Such an argument belongs in a 12(b)(6), merit-based analysis.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court finds it has original jurisdiction over Baker's Fifth Amendment takings claim. However, Baker also asserts a taking in violation of the Texas Constitution. The Court must therefore determine whether it may exercise jurisdiction over Baker's claim for a taking in violation of the Texas Constitution—a state law claim over which the Court does not have original jurisdiction.2
28 U.S.C. § 1367 governs supplemental jurisdiction. Under §...
To continue reading
Request your trial