Muhammad v. Newell et al

Filing 69

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 54 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by W.K. Newell, City of Terrell, TX. (see order) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 08/12/09) (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT DISTRICTOF TEXAS NORTHERN DALLAS DIVISION HERBERTAMEEN MUHAMMAD Plaintiff, VS. W . K . NEWELL, ET AL.
Defendants.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

s

NO.3-08-CV-r426-BD

MEMORANDUM

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants W.K. Newell ("Newell"), a Tenell police officer, and the City of Tenell, Texas ("the City"), have filed a motion for summaryjudgment in this civil rights action brought under 42 statedherein,the motion is granted. U . S . C . $ 1983and Texaslaw. For the reasons I. to O n November 17,2007, Newell was assigned investigatean attemptedburglary at the h o m e of Helen Patman,an 97-year-oldwoman. (SeeDef. MSJ App. at 2, 13, 15-16). Patman reported that an African-American male, whom sheknew as "Muhammad," tried to break into her home. (Id. at 2, 16). According to Patman,the man had previously done yard work for her and stolen a push lawn mower, a pair of tree cutters, and other items of personalproperty. (Id. at 16). Based on the information provided by Patman,as well as his independentknowledge that Herbert Ameen Muhammad was suspectedof similar offensesand had been arrestedfor theft and forgery warningto plaintiff. (Id. at2). When Newell issueda criminal trespass i n this sameresidentialarea, plaintiff objected that he had done nothing wrong, Newell allegedly reached for his gun and to t h r e a t e n e d arrestplaintiff unlesshe signedthe warning. (SeePlf. MSJ Resp.App. at I,n2).

photo lineup to DianneMarical, who On November27,2007, Newell emaileda six-person w i t n e s s e dthe attemptedbreak-in. (Def. MSJ App. at2,8-9). After Marical identified plaintiff as the man she saw trying to enter Patman'sresidence,lNewell requestedan arrest warrant from a municipal court judge . (Id. at 3). In an affrdavit submiued in supportof the warrant, Newell stated: 1. The defendantHerbert Ameen Muhammed [sic] was seenby two witnessesat the front door of victim Helen Patman. WitnessDiane [sic] Marical hasidentified the defendantfrom a six person photo lineup as the one she confronted at 3 11 P a c i f i c [S]treet[,] Tenell[,] Texason November 17th,2007. The front door screen was locked from the inside and defendant was seentearing a hole in the screenand sticking his hand inside the screen and attempted to enter the residence. Defendantwas confronted by the two witnessesand he could not explain the reasonfor being at the residence. D e f e n d a n t has on previous occasionsbeen to the victim's home and has tried to eet the victim to let him inside the house. The defendant is known to affiant, and his standing in the community. The defendant has been arrestedon previous o c c a s i o n sfor forgery of checksstolen from the interior of e l d e r l y people.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

(Id. at 10). The next day, plaintiff was arrestedfor attemptedburglary of habitation. (Id. aI l2). However, he was subsequentlyno-billed by a grandjury and releasedfrom custody after spending 8 2 daysin jail. (SeePlf. MSJ Resp.App. at 2, tl 8). This lawsuit followed. I n his most recent complaint, plaintiff assertsclaims againstNewell and the City for underfederalandTexaslaw, andassault falsearrest,andfalseimprisonment m a l i c i o u sprosecution,

t Although Marical identified plaintiff as the suspect,she said that he did not have any facial hair on "the day caught him with his hand inside the door[.]" (Def. MSJ App. at 8). [I]

and intentional infliction of emotional distressunder Texas law. (SeePlf. First Am. Compl aI5-7, the f l f l l4-17, 18-21,22-24,25-27). The court previouslydismissed federalclaims againstthe City a n d the stateclaims againstNewell. SeeMuhammadv. Newell, No. 3-08-CV-1426-BD,2009 WL 559931 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2009). Defendantsnow move for summaryjudgment as to all remaining claims. The issues have been fully briefed by the parties, and the motion is ripe for determination. II. Summaryjudgment is proper when there is no genuineissueas to any material fact and the m o v a n t is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FBo. R. Ctv, P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. C a t r e t t , 4 7 7 U . 5 . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 , 1 0 6 S . C t . 2 5 4 8 , 2 5 5 2 , 9 1 L . 8 d . 2 d 2 6 5 ( 1 9Apartyseekingsummary 86). judgment who does not have the burden of proof at trial bears the initial burden of showing the of a b s e n c e a genuineissuefor trial. SeeDuffy v. LeadingEdgeProducts,Inc.,44 F.3d 308, 312 (5th of Cir. 1995). This may be done by "pointing out'the absence evidencesupportingthe nonmoving (5th Cir.),cert.denied, Tenneco Resins,Inc.,953F.2d909,9l3 p a r f y ' s c a s e . "Id., quotingSkotakv. ' 1l3 S.Ct. 98 (1992). Oncethe movantmeetsthis burden,the nonmovantmust show that summary j u d g m e n t i s n o t p r o p e r . SeeDuckettv.CityofCedarPark,950F.2d272,276 (5thCir. 1992).The partiesmay satisfutheir respectiveburdensby tenderingdepositions,affidavits, and other competent denied,1l3S.Ct.82(1992). Ehrman,954F.2d1125,ll3l(5th Cir),cert. e v i d e n c eSeeTopalianv. . All evidencemust be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Rosado v . Deters,5 F.3d 119,123(5th Cir. 1993). A. N e w e l l contendsthat plaintiff cannotprove his two remainingfederalclaims because:(l) there is no constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution; and (2) plaintiff was arrested

and detained pursuant to a valid warrant issued by a municipal court judge upon a finding of p r o b a b l ecause. l. The Fifth Circuit hasheld that the federalConstitution doesnot include a "freestanding"right t o be free from malicious prosecution. SeeCastellanov. Fragozo,352 F.3d 939,945 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) , cert. denied,l25 S.Ct. 3l (2004). Instead,a plaintiff must prove that governmentofficials v i o l a t e d a specificconstitutionalright which, in turn, givesrise to a maliciousprosecution.Deville v . Marcantel,567 F.3d 156,169 (5th Cir. 2009). For example,"the initiation of criminal charges without probable causemay set in force eventsthat run afoul of the . . . Fourth Amendment if the accusedis seizedand arrested. . . or other constitutionally securedrights ifa caseis further pursued." I d , , quoting Castellano,352 F.3d at 953-54. However, "they are not claims for malicious prosecution and labelingthem assuchonly invitesconfusion." Castellano,352F.3dat 954. In view plaintiff cannotmaintaina claim underfederallaw for maliciousprosecution. o f this clearprecedent, 2. for Plaintiff allegesthat he was unlawfully arrestedwithout probablecauseand incarcerated a crime he did not commit. (SeePlf. First Am. Compl. at 5, fl 15). Even ifNewell lackedprobable causeto arrestplaintiff, he did so pursuantto a valid warrant signedby a municipal courtjudge. (See Def. MSJ App. at l2). "It is well settled that if facts supporting an arrest are placed before an independentintermediary such as a magistrateor grandjury, the intermediary'sdecision breaksthe for c h a i n of causation falsearrest,insulatingthe initiating party." Deville,567 F.3d at 170,quoting T a y l o r v. Gregg,36 F.3d 453,456(5th Cir. 1994). This principle alsoholds true for a claim of false i m p r i s o n m e n t . SeeRobinsonex rel. Estateof Shieldsv. Twiss,No. SA-01-CA-0289-RF,2003WL 2 3 8 7 9 7 0 5at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2003),citing Taylor,36 F.3d at 456. Thus, in orderto establish

a constitutional violation, plaintiff must prove that Newell knowingly or recklessly provided false i n f o r m a t i o n to securethe arrestwarrant. SeeFreemanv. Countyof Bexar,210 F.3d 550, 553 (5th C i r . ) , cert. denied,l2l S.Ct.318 (2000),citing Franlis v. Delaware,438U.S. 154,171,98 S.Ct. 2 6 7 4 , 2 6 8 4 , 5 7 L.Ed.2d667 (1978). to Plaintiff offers no argument,much less evidence,that Newell made false statements the judge who issued the warrant on November 27, 2007. To the contrary, the summary judgment evidence shows that Newell investigated the crime sceneto verifu the information provided by Patman and did not requestan arrestwaffant until after Marical identified plaintiff as the man she s a w tamperingwith Patman's screendoor. (SeePlf. MSJ App. at 5-9; Def. MSJ App. at2-3,8-9). Newell of discriminatoryanimusand criticizeshis investigation,there A l t h o u g h plaintiff accuses that Newell provided false information to thejudge who issuedthe warrant. is no evidenceto suggest A b s e n t such evidence,plaintiff cannot establisha constitutionalviolation. See,e.g. Gonzalezv. 2008 WL 323150at *7-11 (N.D. Tex. Jan.23,2008), rec. adopted L o p e z , N o . 3-07-CV-0593-M, i n relevantpart,2008 WL 323147(I{.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2008) (grantingsummaryjudgment in favor of police officer on false arrest claim where plaintiff failed to show that defendant intentionally misrepresented facts in probable causeaffidavit submitted to magistratejudge); Morgan v. City of 2003 WL21640563 at *2-4 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 9,2003), as amended, W a c o ,No. 3-01-CV-2818-K, 2 0 0 3 WL 21653869(N.D. Tex. Jul. 31,2003) (same). B. The City also seekssummaryjudgment with respectto plaintiffs stateclaims. Under Texas law, municipal governmentsare immune from suit except to the extent immunity has beenwaived v. b y the TexasTort Claims Act ("TTCA"). SeeCity of Hempstead Kmiec,902 S.W.2d lL9, 122 ( T e x . App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995,no writ). Although the TTCA waives immunity in certain

the limited circumstances, Tex. Civ. Prac.Rem. CodeAnn. $ 101.021, waiver doesnot extend see battery,false imprisonment,or any other intentionaltort[.]" /d $ t o claims "arising out of assault, 1 0 1 . 0 5 7 ( 2 \ Plaintiff makesno attemptto explain how he can overcomethe plain language this of statute and prosecutehis intentional tort claims againstthe City. Accordingly, the City is entitled to summaryjudgment as to those claims. CONCLUSION for D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n summaryjudgment [Doc. #54] is granted.The courtwill dismissthis judgment filed today. action with prejudice by separate

S O ORDERED. D A T E D : August12,2009.

S I " A T E SMAGISTRATE JUDGE