May v. City of Arlington

Decision Date20 March 2019
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:16-CV-1674-L
Citation398 F.Supp.3d 68
Parties Jordan MAY, Jasmine May, and Ava May, as next of kin of Juan Oneil May decedent; and Jindia May Blount, individually and as representative of the Estate of Juan Oneil May, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ARLINGTON, TEXAS, a municipality; and Thedrick Andres, individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Arlington, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Anthony Paul Eiland, The Eiland Law Firm, Garland, TX, Nigel Redmond, Nigel Redmond Attorney at Law, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.

James T. Jeffrey, Jr., Law Offices of Jim Jeffrey, Robert H. Fugate, Cynthia Withers, City of Arlington, City Attorney's Office, Arlington, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Sam A. Lindsay, United States District Judge

Before the court are Defendant City of Arlington's Third Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Brief Filed in Response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Original Complaint (Doc. 28), filed May 14, 2018; and Thedrick Andres' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 30), filed May 31, 2018. Plaintiffs did not file a response to the motions.1 After careful consideration, the court grants Defendant City of Arlington's Third Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 28) to the extent that all federal claims are dismissed with prejudice; and also grants Defendant Thedrick Andres' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) with respect to Plaintiffs' federal claims, and dismisses with prejudice such claims.

I. Background

The court will not set in detail the background regarding this action, as it has been set forth sufficiently in two prior Memorandum Opinion and Orders regarding previously filed motions to dismiss. See Docs. 12 & 24.

In Plaintiffs' Second Amended Original Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint") (Doc. 25), which is the live pleading in this action, Plaintiffs Jordan May, Jasmine May, and Ava May as next of kin of Juan O'Neil May ("Juan May"), decedent; and Jindia May Blount, individually and as representative of the estate of Juan May, deceased, assert claims against the City of Arlington (the "City") and Thedrick Andres ("Andres") as a result of the fatal shooting of Juan May on June 21, 2014. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert claims against the City and Andres under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"); claims for wrongful death under Texas law; a survival claim under Texas law; and a civil rights claim under § 1983 for violation of familial relationship. The common theme of Plaintiffs' claims is that Andres used excessive force when he shot and killed Juan May and wrongfully caused his death, and that May's death was the result of unconstitutional policies or customs of the City.

In its motion, the City contends that: (1) the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages under federal law; (2) Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Juan May was injured as a result of a constitutionally deficient policy or custom of the City; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to file the Second Amended Complaint by April 20, 2018, which was the deadline established by the court.2

Andres contends that, unless Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, all federal claims fail as a matter of law. He contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts to overcome his defense of qualified immunity. The court first addresses the City's motion.

Once again, the court reminds the parties that it is required to accept all well-pleaded facts of a complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Sonnier , 509 F.3d at 675. The court restates this important principle of law because both Defendants, at times, clearly do not accept Plaintiffs' view or version of what transpired the night of June 21, 2014. Whether Defendants disagree with the narrative told by Plaintiffs is of no moment, as the court simply is dealing with this case at the motion-to-dismiss stage and only tests the sufficiency of the pleadings. If allegations are well-pleaded, it is not for the court to determine whether they ultimately prove to be true. That is grist for another day. Accordingly, all matters that the City and Andres question as true are disregarded if the specific allegations support Plaintiffs' positions.

Further, at times, the City and Andres argue matters that are evidentiary in nature and not part of the pleadings. Matters that are not part of the pleadings have been ignored by the court, and the court will consider the context in which allegations are made and make reasonable inferences based upon those allegations. Defendants know this, but they continue to inject matters that are not part of the pleadings and provide their interpretations of straightforward allegations to dampen what Plaintiffs have set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.

Finally, many of Plaintiffs' allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are simply inapposite and argumentative, and do not assist the court in its analysis and determination of the pending motions to dismiss. As such, the irrelevant allegations have been disregarded by the court.

This case presents a regrettable set of facts and is highly charged with emotions, but this does not lessen the parties' obligation to maintain complete candor with the court. The absence of complete candor by engaging in conduct described in the three preceding paragraphs hinders the prompt administration of justice, as it unnecessarily requires the court to divert its attention from the real issues and deal with time-consuming red herrings and rabbit trails.

II. The City's Motion to Dismiss
A. Rule 12(b)(6) – Failure to State a Claim

To defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle , 517 F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir. 2008) ; Guidry v. American Pub. Life Ins. Co. , 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007). A claim meets the plausibility test "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal citations omitted). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citation omitted). The "[f]actual allegations of [a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted). When the allegations of the pleading do not allow the court to infer more than the mere possibility of wrongdoing, they fall short of showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. , 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007) ; Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit , 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) ; Baker v. Putnal , 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the pleadings. Id. ; Spivey v. Robertson , 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999). The pleadings include the complaint and any documents attached to it. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter , 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000). Likewise, " [d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to [the plaintiff's] claims.’ " Id. (quoting Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp. , 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993) ). In this regard, a document that is part of the record but not referred to in a plaintiff's complaint and not attached to a motion to dismiss may not be considered by the court in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc. , 699 F.3d 812, 820 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Further, it is well-established and " ‘clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion [that a court may] take judicial notice of matters of public record.’ " Funk v. Stryker Corp. , 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Norris v. Hearst Trust , 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007)) (citing Cinel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994) ).

The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid claim when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter , 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). While well-pleaded facts of a complaint are to be accepted as true, legal conclusions are not "entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted). Further, a court is not to strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiff and is not to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or legal conclusions. R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips , 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The court does not evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bumpass v. Birkhead
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • 28 Febrero 2022
    ......Bumpass' parents. ("Plaintiffs") bring this action against Durham. County Sheriff Clarence F. Birkhead ... Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of jurisdiction and. for failure ... are relevant to the action." Devers v. City of. Huntington, No. CV 3:18-1452, 2019 WL 4281936, ...City of. Arlington, Texas, 398 F.Supp.3d 68, 77 (N.D. Tex. 2019),. ......
  • Byrd v. City of Madisonville
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 11 Mayo 2020
    ...rights of the plaintiff, and such indifference is a 'closely related' cause of the plaintiff's injuries." May v. City of Arlington, Texas, 398 F. Supp. 3d 68, 79 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (citing and quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 391 (1989)). When challenged in a 12(b)(6) cont......
  • Goins v. City of Hous.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 8 Junio 2021
    ...rights of the plaintiff, and such indifference is a 'closely related' cause of the plaintiff's injuries." May v. City of Arlington, Texas, 398 F. Supp. 3d 68, 79 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (citing and quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 391 (1989)). When challenged in a 12(b)(6) cont......
  • Rollins v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • 12 Agosto 2021
    ... TERRENCE ROLLINS v. TIMOTHY JONES ET AL. Civil Action No. 19-10879United States District Court, E.D. ... Act against Jones, Martin, and the City of New Orleans. . . Defendants. ... . . [20] May v. City of Arlington,. Texas, 398 F.Supp.3d 68, 78 (N.D. Tex. 2019),. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT