Hudler v. McAfee

• Decision Date: 10 February 2023
• Docket Number: 1:22-CV-769-LY
• Parties: ZACHARY P. HUDLER, Plaintiff v. WILEY MCAFEE, JACK SCHUMACHER, JAMES LOVING, and ADAM ACOSTA, individually, and BLANCO COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

ZACHARY P. HUDLER, Plaintiff
v.
WILEY MCAFEE, JACK SCHUMACHER, JAMES LOVING, and ADAM ACOSTA, individually, and BLANCO COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant

No. 1:22-CV-769-LY

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

February 10, 2023

HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendant Blanco County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint, filed September 2, 2022 (Dkt. 2); Defendants Wiley McAfee and Jack Schumacher's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, filed October 25, 2022 (Dkt. 8); and the associated response and reply briefs. The District Court referred the motions to this Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Dkts. 5, 10.

I. Background

Plaintiff Zachary Hudler, an attorney in Blanco County, Texas,^[1] brings this civil rights lawsuit against Blanco County and several Blanco County officials. Hudler alleges that he was falsely arrested and prosecuted for a crime he did not commit, subjected to excessive use of force, and

1

the officials presented false testimony against him, in violation of his constitutional rights. Dkt. 1 (Plaintiff's Original Complaint) ¶ 1.

Hudler alleges that he represented Jarrett Bous, a Blanco County resident who owns a 10-acre property where he leases cabins and RV spaces, in several civil matters before August 14, 2020. Id. ¶ 16. On July 3, 2020, Bous asked Hudler to contact one of Bous's tenants, Robert Poole, about past due rent that he allegedly owed to Bous. Id. ¶ 20. Hudler alleges that he contacted Poole and exchanged several messages with him about the past due rent. Id. ¶ 21. Poole's body was discovered outside his residence on Bous' property on July 8, 2020. Id. ¶ 22.

On July 23, 2020, Bous was arrested and charged with murdering Poole. Id. ¶ 18. Bous retained Hudler to represent him in his criminal case on August 14, 2020. Id. ¶ 24. Hudler alleges that a few minutes after he agreed to represent Bous, Adam Acosta, a sergeant with the Blanco County Sheriff's Office, called him and “offered his ‘opinion' that Hudler could not represent Mr. Bous in the murder case because there was a conflict of interest.” Id. ¶ 32. Hudler alleges that Acosta stated, “it would be a conflict of interest for you (Hudler) to represent a dead guy and the guy who murdered him.” Id. ¶ 33. Hudler alleges that he told Acosta he did not have a conflict of interest because he never represented Poole. Acosta allegedly told Hudler that he would pass Hudler's message “up the chain.” Id. ¶ 37.

Two weeks later, Hudler alleges that he was sitting in his car with his wife when Acosta approached the driver's side window. Acosta told Hudler that “‘they' needed to speak with Hudler.” Id. ¶ 49. Hudler alleges that he followed Acosta toward a picnic table on the courthouse lawn. Blanco County District Attorney Investigator Jack Schumacher and James Loving, a sergeant with the Blanco County Sheriff's Office, approached and sat down at the table. Id. ¶¶ 5052. Hudler alleges that he suggested that they meet in his office, but Schumacher refused. Id. ¶ 59.

2

Hudler alleges that “there appeared to be a body camera on the table near where Acosta was standing.” Id. ¶ 60.

Wiley McAfee, District Attorney for the Texas 33rd and 424th Judicial Districts, which include Blanco County, then approached the table with a file underneath his arm, and Hudler greeted McAfee with a handshake. Id. ¶¶ 64-65. Hudler alleges that Schumacher “reached across the table and grabbed Hudler's phone that was sitting on the table,” while saying “give me that phone” in a “very aggressive tone.” Id. ¶¶ 68-70. Hudler states that he was “understandably upset” and “grabbed his phone from Schumacher, got up from the table, and headed back toward his office.” Id. ¶¶ 70-72. Hudler stopped about twenty feet from the table. Id. ¶ 75.

Hudler alleges that: “Without warning, Loving tackled Hudler to the ground while Acosta grabbed and struck Hudler's head,” cutting his left eye. Id. ¶¶ 78-79. Hudler alleges that Loving and Acosta “forced Hudler to his knees while screaming at him to give them his phone,” which had been knocked out of his hands. Id. ¶¶ 79-80. Acosta then handcuffed Hudler. Id. ¶ 85. Schumacher and McAfee told Hudler that they had a search warrant and he was under arrest for evading a search warrant. Id. ¶¶ 91-97. Hudler alleges that Blanco County Judge Brett Bray “witnessed the entire incident from the upstairs of the Blanco County Courthouse” and Hudler's wife recorded the incident on her phone. Id. ¶¶ 90, 106.

After his arrest, Loving took Hudler to the Blanco County Jail. Id. ¶ 114. Hudler alleges that Schumacher and Acosta came to the jail and gave him documents, including a search warrant, an affidavit for search warrant, and a waiver of privilege from Poole's estate representatives. Id. ¶ 117. Hudler alleges that only the seventh page of the search warrant mentions seizure of his person, as opposed to his phone, and that page appears to have been printed separately from the first six pages, which end midsentence. Id. ¶¶ 121-23. Three Sheriff's Deputies, including Loving,

3

presented Hudler with a blood warrant and his blood was drawn. Id. ¶ 126. Hudler then was released on a $1,000 bond. Id. ¶ 129.

Hudler was charged with resisting arrest, search, or transportation, a misdemeanor, and prosecuted “for over a year.” Id. ¶¶ 130, 135. Hudler alleges that McAfee “remained intimately involved with Hudler's prosecution.” Id. ¶ 136. At a hearing held on September 21, 2021, the special prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge. Id. ¶¶ 140, 142.

Hudler alleges violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Blanco County and Acosta, McAfee, Loving, and Schumacher. He asserts these claims: (1) false arrest against all the individual defendants; (2) excessive force against Acosta and Loving; (3) presentation of false testimony/evidence against Loving and Schumacher; (4) conspiracy to violate Hudler's constitutional rights against all the individual defendants; (5) bystander liability against all the individual defendants; and (6) a Monell^[2] claim against Blanco County. He seeks damages and attorneys' fees.

Blanco County now moves to dismiss all claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants McAfee and Schumacher seek partial judgment on Hudler's presentation of false testimony/evidence, conspiracy, and bystander claims under Rule 12(c).

II. Legal Standards

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law ....

4

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2013).

Claims under Section 1983 may be brought against persons in their individual or official capacity, or against a governmental entity. Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009). However, it is well established that a municipality or a local governmental unit is not liable under Section 1983 on the theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Therefore, to establish municipal liability under

Section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) an official policy or custom, of which (2) a policy maker can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose “moving force” is that policy or custom. Newbury v. City of Windcrest, Tex., 991 F.3d 672, 680 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pineda v. City of Houston, 291 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2002)).

B. Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c)

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts “all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The Supreme...