Johnson v. The City of San Antonio

• Decision Date: 20 April 2023
• Docket Number: 22-50196
• Parties: April Johnson, an individual and as next friend of A.N.E.R., a minor; A.N.E.R., a minor child, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. The City of San Antonio; Daniel Groce, Officer, Badge #1182, individually and in his official capacity; Does 1 through 25, Defendants-Appellees, Gary Tuli, Officer, Badge #517, individually and in his official capacity; Jessica Osoria, Officer, Badge #1422, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

1

April Johnson, an individual and as next friend of A.N.E.R., a minor; A.N.E.R., a minor child, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. The City of San Antonio; Daniel Groce, Officer, Badge #1182, individually and in his official capacity; Does 1 through 25, Defendants-Appellees, Gary Tuli, Officer, Badge #517, individually and in his official capacity; Jessica Osoria, Officer, Badge #1422, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 22-50196

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

April 20, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19-CV-733

Before WIENER, STEWART, ^[*] and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[**]

In 2017, A'Mynae Roberts attended her friend's quinceanera and found herself in the back of a police car, in disheveled clothes and handcuffed, for the alleged assault of a police officer. She asserted various § 1983 and state-law claims against three officers, Officer Tuli Officer Osoria, and Officer Groce,^[1] and the City of San Antonio (the "City").^[2] She appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and the court's dismissal of her state-law claims. Officer Tuli and Officer Osoria appeal the district court's denial of their summary-judgment motions. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS in part and REVERSE in part.

I. Facts & Procedural History

On May 20, 2017, Officer Tuli, Officer Groce, Officer Osoria, and approximately six other officers of the San Antonio Police Department ("SAPD") responded to an assault in progress between partygoers outside of a quinceanera. Upon arrival, they met a large, angry crowd of about fifty to sixty people. People were yelling at one another, and fights brawls, and arguments broke out between different groups in multiple areas. Roberts (then 14 years old) and her mother April Johnson, were part of the crowd and allegedly engaged in the fighting. Despite there being only eight or nine officers present (including Officers Tuli, Groce, and Osoria), the officers attempted to control the unruly crowd and separate fighting individuals. At some point amidst the chaos, Officer Tuli told Johnson to "shut up" in an "aggressive way." What happened next is disputed.

According to Roberts, she yelled to Officer Tuli, "don't talk to her like that!" and "made a gesture toward Officer Tuli" with her finger. Then Officer Tuli punched her in the face. The punch caused her to spin around and lose her balance. As a result, her strapless dress fell, exposing her breasts. She was handcuffed, placed in the back of an SAPD car, and taken to jail. She was charged with assaulting a police officer. Roberts states that she never hit Officer Tuli, made any movements with her arms in his proximity, or - as he says she did - called him a "white mother fucker."

According to Officer Tuli, Roberts yelled at him and attempted to instigate a fight. He described Roberts as "being loud," "not following orders," and "an obvious threat based on her demeanor." After Officer Tuli allegedly commanded Roberts to back away, Roberts moved closer to him, which provoked Officer Tuli to "lightly push[] her back." Then, Roberts allegedly balled up her fists, took a bladed stance, struck the left side of Officer Tuli's face with her right fist, and called him a "white mother fucker." After being hit, Officer Tuli says that he punched Roberts in the face with a closed fist and pulled her arms behind her back. Despite Roberts' continued fighting, pulling away, and struggling, Officer Tuli says that he and Officer Osoria effected the arrest and placed her in the police car.

According to Officer Osoria, Roberts was "definitely hostile." Roberts was allegedly not listening to lawful orders, was interfering with police duties, and was being loud. She then took a "fighter stance," says Officer Osoria, "charged towards [Officer Tuli]," and struck him on the left side of his face with a right closed fist. Officer Tuli then allegedly struck Roberts with a closed fist and attempted to arrest her. Officer Osoria's police report states that Roberts was uncooperative, disobeyed lawful orders, and refused to place her hands behind her back. Officer Osoria assisted Officer Tuli in the arrest by grabbing Roberts' arm, pulling it behind her back, and securing her up against a nearby vehicle. Because Roberts allegedly "caused a struggle" while the officers detained her, her top fell down and exposed her breasts. Officer Osoria says she attempted to cover Roberts by fixing Roberts' top, but was not able to do so because of Roberts' continuous struggling and failure to cooperate. Officer Osoria then allegedly walked Roberts over to a police vehicle and, once Roberts stopped struggling, deemed it was "safe" for her to adjust her top, which Officer Osoria did for Roberts in the back of the car. Afterwards, Officer Osoria reported that Officer Tuli complained of pain and minor swelling to his face.

This suit followed. Against Officer Tuli, Roberts brought claims for excessive force, assault and battery, and unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, all under § 1983; and state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. Against Officer Groce and Officer Osoria, Roberts brought claims for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment under § 1983 and state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. Against the City, Roberts brought claims for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention. All parties moved for summary judgment.

Citing genuine issues of material fact, the district court denied Robert's motion for summary judgment, granted the City's cross-motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Officer Tuli's and Officers Groce and Osoria's cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court dismissed all state-law claims and all claims against Officer Groce and the City. The court then "terminated" Officer Groce and the City as parties to the suit as a result of its granting their respective motions for summary judgment. Following the district court's disposition of those motions, these claims remained: (1) an excessive force claim brought under 1983 against Officer Tuli; (2) unlawful-arrest and false-imprisonment claims brought under § 1983 against Officer Tuli; and (3) unlawful-arrest and false-imprisonment claims brought under § 1983 against Officer Osoria.

Roberts timely appealed the district court's: (1) grant of summary judgment in favor of the City; and (2) dismissal of her state-law claims. Officer Tuli and Officer Osoria timely appealed the district court's denial of their summary-judgment motions premised on qualified immunity.

II. Roberts' appeal:

A. The grant of summary judgment in favor of the City:

Roberts challenges the dismissal of her claims against the City. But our jurisdiction over Roberts' appeal of the district court's grant of the City's summary-judgment motion is suspect. "It is axiomatic that parties may not stipulate appellate jurisdiction. We are obliged, sua sponte if necessary, to examine the basis for our jurisdiction." Borne v. A &P Boat Rentals No. 4, Inc., 755 F.2d 1131, 1133 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). "Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, courts of appeals may review only 'final decisions' of the district courts." Williams v. Seidenbach, 958 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). "[I]n a suit against multiple defendants, there is no final decision as to one defendant until there is a final decision as to all defendants." Williams, 948 F.3d at 343 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) (absent an order to the contrary, "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties")). But, "[w]hen an action involves multiple parties or claims, an order dismissing some of the claims is final for appellate purposes only if the district court (1) has made an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of judgment, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), or (2) certifies the case for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)." Castille v. City of League City, Texas, No. 21-40202, 2022 WL 175545, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished).^[3] Here, the district court's order on the motions for summary judgment did not dispose of Roberts' §1983 claims against Officer Tuli and Officer Osoria. Thus, it adjudicated fewer than all of the claims of all of the parties. Nothing in the order or the record reflects an intent by the district judge to enter a partial final judgment. In fact, the order simply provides:

All state law claims are DISMISSED and the § 1983 claims against Officer Groce and the City are DISMISSED. The Court orders Officer Groce and the City of San Antonio be TERMINATED as parties to this suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

From this, the City correctly argues that we lack jurisdiction over the claims asserted against it because "[t]here is no clear, unmistakable declaration of appealability in the district court's order granting summary judgment to the City." Neither Rule 54(b)^[4] nor § 1292(b)^[5] supplies jurisdiction for the appeal of the district court's grant of the City's summary judgment motion.

Examining Rule 54(b) first, there is no indication that the district court unmistakably directed a final judgment as to the City. "If the language in the order appealed from, either independently or together with related portions of the record referred to in...