Police v. Navarro Coll.
| Decision Date | 10 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:22-cv-00712-E |
| Parties | MICHAEL POLICE, Plaintiff, v. NAVARRO COLLEGE and OFFICER DAVID ARNETT. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Plaintiff Michael Police filed this suit against Defendant Navarro College and Defendant Officer David Arnett of the Navarro College Department of Public Safety. Plaintiff asserts against both Defendant Officer David Arnett and Defendant Navarro College: (1) various claims under Texas state law and (2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Both defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc 12; Doc. 13). On March 31, 2023, the Court issued a separate Order, (Doc. 28), that: (1) granted in part and denied in part Defendant David Arnett's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint, (Doc. 12); and (2) granted Defendant Navarro College's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint. The Order stated that “[a]n opinion containing the grounds for the Court's decision is forthcoming.” (Doc. 28). Hereunder, the Court explains its reasoning for the Court's decision.
This action arises out of an interaction between Plaintiff Michael Police (“Plaintiff”) and David Arnett (“Arnett”)-an officer with the Navarro College Department of Public Safety (”NCDPS”). The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff's Original Complaint (the “Complaint”), (Doc. 1), and, at this stage, must be accepted by the Court as true.[1]See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) () (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, at 555 (2007)).
On March 28, 2020, Plaintiff, an African-American male, was a nineteen-year-old student living in a dormitory on the campus of Navarro College in Corsicana, Texas. As alleged on that day, Plaintiff and his friend Drewshard Bell (“Bell”), also an African-American male, walked down a street and then sat outside of an apartment complex outside of the College. The apartment complex was near the College. Plaintiff was smoking a cigar when Arnett stopped his patrol car and allegedly “ordered” Plaintiff and Bell to walk towards his car. Plaintiff alleges that, based on “information and belief, Defendant Arnett has a history of targeting African-American male students at Navarro College[,]” and-despite “awareness of Defendant Arnett's history”-the college has not only retained Arnett but promoted him. (Doc. 1, pg. 3, ¶ 9).
Plaintiff and Bell walked from the apartment complex stairwell to Arnett's car and identified themselves by giving their names and dates of birth. “Plaintiff was casually smoking a cigar in full view of Arnett, [making] no attempt to conceal it.” (Doc. 1, pg. 3, ¶ 9). Arnett “asked Plaintiff if he could search him after accusing [Plaintiff and Bell] of smoking marijuana.” (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 10). Plaintiff acknowledges in his Complaint that he consented to the search. (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 10). Arnett searched Plaintiff's person by patting him down and reaching into his pockets. In one of Plaintiff's pant pockets, Arnett found a “clear empty cylinder tube.” (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 11). Arnett told Plaintiff and Bell that “he could smell a faint odor of marijuana emanating from the tube,” but Arnett did not find any marijuana residue in or around the tube. (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 12). Plaintiff told Arnett that the tube was the packaging for a “CBD cigarette,” which may be legally marketed, sold, and purchased in the State of Texas.
Arnett then asked Bell, “Do you mind if a search you?” (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 13). Bell responded, “Yes.” (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 13). Arnett searched Bell, but Bell denied giving consent after the search was completed. Arnett then handcuffed Bell, saying that Bell “looked nervous.” (Doc. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 13). Arnett then, according to the Complaint, “commanded” Plaintiff and Bell to accompany Arnett to the outdoor stairwell of the apartment complex, where Plaintiff and Bell had been originally seated. (Doc. 1., pg. 5, ¶ 14). Arnett searched the stairwell area for marijuana and repeatedly asked the two students where the marijuana was. The search of the area around the stairwell turned up no marijuana or evidence of criminal activity whatsoever.
After finding no marijuana or other contraband in the area around the stairwell, Arnett asked Plaintiff and Bell whether he could search their dormitory rooms on the College campus. Both students declined to give consent to a search of their respective College dormitories. Arnett, the Complaint alleges, responded by telling the students, “That's okay, I'm going to search [them] anyway.” (Doc. 1, pg. 5, ¶ 15). Arnett then, according to Plaintiff's Complaint, “demanded” that both Plaintiff and Bell accompany Arnett to their College dormitory rooms, where he conducted a search of each student's dormitory room with two other safety and welfare College employees. (Doc. 1, pg. 5, ¶ 16). Arnett did not obtain a warrant for the search of the dormitories. Before conducting the search of Plaintiff's dormitory room, according to the Complaint, Arnett “stated to Plaintiff and Bell that since they had denied consent to search their dormitory rooms, that any contraband or evidence of a crime would not be prosecuted in a criminal court of law but could be used against them in a college administrative punishment proceeding.” (Doc. 1, pg. 5, ¶ 15).
Plaintiff was present in his College dormitory during the search. Arnett continued to ask Plaintiff where the marijuana was located, and Plaintiff continued to deny having any marijuana in his dormitory room. The search of Plaintiff's dormitory room revealed no marijuana or contraband. The search of Bell's dormitory also revealed no marijuana or contraband. Arnett wrote and issued both Plaintiff and Bell citations for possession of marijuana paraphernalia based on the cylindrical tube Arnett found on Plaintiff's person. Local prosecutors took the charges against Plaintiff to trial, and Plaintiff was eventually acquitted.
On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against both Arnett and the College. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following claims against Arnett: (1) a state-law claim for malicious prosecution; (2) a state-law claim for both assault and battery; (3) a state-law claim for false imprisonment; (4) a state-law claim for intrusion on seclusion; and (5) a federal-law claim for the alleged violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint also asserts the following claims against the College: (1) a state-law claim for malicious prosecution; and (2) a federal-law for governmental liability for the alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 5, 2022, Arnett filed his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint (“Arnett's Motion”), asserting a defense of qualified immunity. (Doc. 12). On May 6, 2022, the College filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint (“the College's Motion”). (Doc. 13). Both motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for consideration. For the reasons discussed below, the Court partially grants and partially denies Arnett's Motion and grants the entirety of College's Motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he 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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Thus, a claim “is implausible on its face when ‘the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.'” Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679); see also Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 920 F.3d 890, 899 (5th Cir. 2019).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Arnett's Motion. (Doc. 12). Specifically, the Court grants in part the motion with respect to Plaintiff's statelaw claims against Arnett and dismisses those claims with prejudice. However, the Court denies in part the motion with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983...
To continue reading
Request your trial