Dale v. Miller et al

Filing 26

Memorandum Opinion and Order... The court ORDERS that Miller's motion for judgment on the pleadings be, and is hereby, granted, and that all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiff, William Gregory Dale, against Miller be, and are hereby, dismissed,with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 2/18/2015) (wxc)

LS. DISTRiCT COUn
NORTHER\' DISTRICT Of TEXAS

.

FILED

IN
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE
FORT WORTH DIVISION

s

FEB I 8 2015

'

J

CLERK, U.S. DISTRiCT CGl;(T

WILLIAM GREGORY DALE,
Plaintiff,

/
I_

§

By ----;-:iJ-r)•.- _ _ __
:-ry
1

§
§
§

vs.

§

MICHELLE MILLER,

§
§
§

Defendant.

NO. 4:13-CV-837-A

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, filed in the above action by defendant, Michelle
Miller ("Miller") . 1

Although the court granted plaintiff,

William Gregory Dale, until February 10, 2015, to file his
response, that deadline has passed, and plaintiff has filed
nothing in response to the motion.

Having now considered the

motion, plaintiff's original complaint, and the applicable legal
authorities, the court concludes that the motion should be
granted.

1

Child Protective Services ("CPS") was originally named as a defendant along with Miler. On
December 12, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal as to CPS, and the court entered final
judgment on December 12, 2013.

~

I .

Background and Plaintiff's Claims Against Miller
Plaintiff initiated this action by the filing of his
original petition in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas,
67th Judicial District, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983 against Miller and CPS.

§

Following removal, the court

ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint, consistent with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local civil rules of
this court.

In the complaint filed in response to the court's

order, plaintiff alleged the following:
In 2011 plaintiff was tried in the District Court of
Freestone County, Texas, 87th Judicial District, on charges of
aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.

Concurrent

with the criminal investigation, CPS also conducted an
investigation into any possible unlawful conduct by plaintiff
against his niece, a minor.

Miller, then an'employee of CPS,

conducted the investigation and prepared a report.

No misconduct

was found and no action was taken against plaintiff.
On or about September 8, 2011, during plaintiff's criminal
trial, Miller testified that she had contacted a counselor at the
niece's school.

However, this testimony was false.

Additionally, in her report, Miller stated other falsehoods, such
as that plaintiff lived in Mexia, Texas, had two male children,
2

and had been the subject of previous child sex allegations.
of these allegations were true.

None

These falsehoods were presented

through Miller's testimony at plaintiff's criminal trial to
refute plaintiff's defensive testimony and discredit other
defense witnesses, thus contributing to plaintiff's conviction.
Plaintiff was convicted on all charges and sentenced to fifteen
years' imprisonment.
Plaintiff alleged that Miller, acting under color of state
law, through her false testimony, violated his constitutional
right "to be free from a conviction tainted with perjury."
Compl. at 5.
II.
Grounds of Miller's Motion
Miller argues that the complaint fails to state a plausible
claim for relief because, taking plaintiff's allegations as true
for purposes of the motion, Miller is protected by the doctrine
of absolute immunity afforded to trial witnesses.
III.
Analysis
A.

Legal Standards Applicable to Rule 12(c)
Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

any party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the
pleadings are closed and when it would not delay trial.
3

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(c).

A motion for judgment on the pleadings "is

designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in
dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking
to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed
facts."

Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Properties, Ltd., 914

F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990).

A motion for judgment on the

pleadings is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, that is, "whether, in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid
claim for relief."
Cir. 2008)
B.

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th

(internal citations omitted).

Applying the Standards to Plaintiff's
Claims Against Miller
The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is his contention that

Miller testified falsely during plaintiff's criminal trial.
Courts have long recognized that witnesses are entitled to
immunity for their testimony:
Because the witness plays such an integral role in the
fact-finding process, the reluctant or reticent witness
would disserve the ends of justice regardless of the
nature of the proceeding. Furthermore, it seems
obvious that the prospect of personal liability under a
civil rights claim would pose the same risk of
intimidation as would the possibility of liability
under the common law. It is the threat of money
damages that produces the intimidating effect, and that
threat is present under either theory of liability.
4

Consequently, the policies underlying the common law
rule of absolute immunity also justify providing a
witness with immunity from § 1983 liability.
Charles v. Wade, 665 F.2d 661, 666 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982).
Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that witnesses, like judges
and prosecutors, are shielded by absolute immunity from liability
under 42 U.S.C.

§

1983 arising from their participation in

judicial proceedings.

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).

Affording such protection to even the most dishonest witness "is
simply a necessary consequence of a rule deemed essential to
maintaining the integrity of the judicial process."

Charles, 665

F. 2d at 667.
The sum of the foregoing authorities is that Miller is
immune from civil liability for her alleged false testimony given
in plaintiff's criminal trial.

Because Miller's allegedly false

testimony is the sole basis of plaintiff's claims against her,
plaintiff's claims must be dismissed. 2

2

As noted in Miller's motion, plaintiff contends that Miller's testimony "contribut[ed] to Plaintiffs
conviction." Com pl. at 4. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to maintain that Miller's testimony caused
or contributed to a wrongful conviction, such a contention is is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
4 77 ( 1994), unless plaintiff can show that "an authorized tribunal or executive body has overturned or
otherwise invalidated the plaintiffs conviction." Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir. 2000)
(per curiam) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487)). Plaintiff has failed to made such a showing.

5

IV.

Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that Miller's motion for judgment on the
pleadings be, and is hereby, granted, and that all claims and
causes of action asserted by plaintiff, William Gregory Dale,
against Miller be, and are hereby, dismissed,with prejudice.
SIGNED February 18, 2015.

6