Polnac v. City of Sulphur Springs, Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-00666

• Court: United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
• Writing for the Court: AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: 555 F.Supp.3d 309
• Parties: Michael POLNAC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SULPHUR SPRINGS, Joshua Davis, and Justin Findley, Defendants.
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-00666
• Decision Date: 18 August 2021

555 F.Supp.3d 309

Michael POLNAC, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SULPHUR SPRINGS, Joshua Davis, and Justin Findley, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-00666

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.

Signed August 18, 2021

555 F.Supp.3d 319

T. Nguyen, Turley Law Firm, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Robert Jacob Davis, Matthews Shiels Knott Eden Davis & Beanland LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

555 F.Supp.3d 320

Pending before the Court is Officers Davis and Findley's First Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #25) and the City of Sulphur Springs’ First Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #26). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Officers’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part, and the City's motion should be denied.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an incident involving two Sulphur Springs Police Department officers—Joshua Davis ("Officer Davis") and Justin Findley ("Officer Findley") (collectively, the "Officers")—and Plaintiff.¹ To better understand the lawsuit, the Court lays out the pertinent facts below.

On October 22, 2018, a Sulphur Springs Police Department 911 operator received a call from one of the town's residents. According to the resident, a woman—later identified as Plaintiff's girlfriend—had asked for assistance in jumpstarting her dead vehicle. The caller—later identified as a neighbor of Plaintiff's—went to help the woman but was unsuccessful. The Officers were subsequently dispatched to Plaintiff's home.

When the Officers arrived at Plaintiff's house, only the girlfriend was outside. The girlfriend reiterated that she needed help jumpstarting her car, and that she just wanted to get home. As the Officers were speaking with Plaintiff's girlfriend, Plaintiff walked onto his front porch. Plaintiff informed Officer Findley that the woman needed to leave the premises. Officer Findley approached Plaintiff and asked for identification. Plaintiff eventually gave his full name and a set of numbers.² Officer Findley again asked for identification, presumably seeking an identification card, but Plaintiff was adamant that Officer Findley did not need such information. Officer Davis then reached for a cup Plaintiff was holding, and Plaintiff pulled away from Officer Davis. This action resulted in Plaintiff being pinned face down on the concrete by Officer Findley and handcuffed by Officer Davis. Plaintiff was placed under arrest and jailed overnight. The next day, Plaintiff was presented to a magistrate judge and subsequently bonded out of jail.

Plaintiff was charged with (1) resisting arrest, search, or transportation and (2) interference with public duties. After Plaintiff's state-court criminal trial, Plaintiff was found not guilty of resisting arrest, search, or transportation. Subsequent to Plaintiff's acquittal, the interference with public duties charge was dismissed by the District Attorney's Office. Plaintiff then filed suit against the City of Sulphur Springs ("the City"), Officer Davis, and Officer Findley. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action in his Amended Complaint:³

• Count I is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of Fourth Amendment

555 F.Supp.3d 321

Rights to the United States Constitution (Unlawful Arrest) Against Defendants Davis and Findley, Individually and Officially;

• Count II is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights to the United States Constitution (Unreasonable and Excessive Force) Against Defendants Davis and Findley, Individually and Officially; and

• Count III is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Monell Claim Against Defendant City of Sulphur Springs.

On December 21, 2020, the Officers filed the present motion (Dkt. #25). On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #35). On February 4, 2021, the Officers filed a reply (Dkt. #37).

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Judicial Notice

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact "that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." FED. R. EVID . 201(b). The Fifth Circuit has held that judicial notice may be taken of "[s]pecific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy." Turner v. Lieutenant Driver , 848 F.3d 678, 692 n.63 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Weaver v. United States , 298 F.2d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 1962) ). If a court takes judicial notice, "on timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed," even if the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party. FED. R. EVID. 201(e).

II. Rule 12(b)(6)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a "short and plain statement ... showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each claim must include enough factual allegations "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen , 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a district court "must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Funk v. Stryker Corp. , 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. , 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007) ). The Court must then determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Gonzalez v. Kay , 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting

555 F.Supp.3d 322

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). "But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) ).

In Iqbal , the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and disregard conclusory allegations, for they are "not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 664, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Second, the Court "consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Id. "This standard ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims or elements.’ " Morgan v. Hubert , 335 F. App'x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This evaluation will "be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

ANALYSIS

Officers’ Motion to Dismiss

The Officers’ motion presents two issues to the Court for consideration: (1) "Whether Plaintiff has plead[ed] any plausible Federal claims against Officers Davis and Findley which overcome their Qualified Immunity;" and (2) "Whether Plaintiff has plead[ed] any plausible claim against Officers Davis and Findley in their ‘official capacity’ which are not duplicative of claims against the City" (Dkt. #25 at p. 3). The Officers contend that both answers are "no," and, in support, the Officers offer various arguments.⁴ The Officers first claim that "Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state any plausible Federal claims against Officers Davis or Findley" because: (1) "Plaintiff has failed to allege any Federal claims which would...