Dunsmore v. Burroughs
Filing
50
OPINION AND ORDER FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS; denying 44 MOTION to Compel Disclosure and Discovery, Per FRCVP 37, et Seq, 47 MOTION for Hearing. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file his amended complaint within 30 days of his receipt of this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
RICHARD A DUNSMORE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SCOTT BURROUGHS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
November 09, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-132
OPINION AND ORDER FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS
Plaintiff Richard Dunsmore brought this cause of action in state court on June 4,
2015, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages from Defendant Scott
A. Burroughs, individually and as chief of police of Port Aransas, Texas. Defendant
removed the action to federal court on April 25, 2016 (D.E. 1). Plaintiff sought remand
of the action to state court, but his motion was denied on July 21, 2016 (D.E. 36).
Plaintiff alleges that based on fabricated and erroneous information provided by
two acquaintances, a member of the Port Aransas Police Department made a false or
recklessly worded affidavit in order to obtain a warrant to search Plaintiff's property in
Port Aransas, Nueces County, Texas. Plaintiff asserts that the language of the warrant
was overbroad and authorized seizure of items unrelated to Plaintiff's alleged criminal
conduct, resulting in a violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights under the
Constitution.
Plaintiff further alleges that even though nothing was found that tended to prove
the criminal allegations, the Port Aransas Police Department has refused to return items
1/7
to him that he claims have exculpatory value in a different criminal matter, which he
identifies as "56909" and "56910." Plaintiff seeks return of the seized items. In addition,
Plaintiff claims that he has suffered damages because he cannot use his property to refute
and impeach statements and false allegations made against him and seeks $100,000 in
damages.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order compelling disclosure and discovery (D.E.
44) and a motion for a hearing (D.E. 47). As discussed more fully below, Plaintiff is
ordered to file a more definite statement and his pending motions are denied without
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff provides scant background information in his complaint. In September
2010 Plaintiff was living in Port Aransas, Texas with a roommate when some sort of
incident occurred. Law enforcement became involved and a member of the Port Aransas
police department filed an affidavit for a search warrant which was granted. Plaintiff
asserts that when law enforcement executed the search warrant, items were seized that
were irrelevant to the incident that occurred in Port Aransas, but the items were made
available for a proceeding involving sexual misconduct in another jurisdiction. Plaintiff
refers to a seized property inventory attached as Exhibits 4(a) and 4(b) to his original
complaint, but the inventory is not included in the materials removed from the state court.
2/7
APPLICABLE LAW
A. Prison Litigation Reform Act
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA). Under the PLRA, any prisoner
action brought under federal law must be dismissed if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2), 1915A. The PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints
and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202 (2007). Plaintiff's action is subject to screening regardless of
whether he prepays the entire fee or proceeds as a pauper. Ruiz v. United States, 160
F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1986)(per curiam); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir.
1998)(per curiam).
The fact that the case was removed from state court is of no
consequence. Johnson v. Louisiana ex rel. Louisiana Dept. of Pub. Safety and Corr., 468
F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is entitled to have his
pleadings liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
"To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a
right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the
alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An action may be dismissed for failure to state a claim
when it is clear that the prisoner can prove no set of facts in support of his claim entitling
3/7
him to relief. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002). The complaint must be
liberally construed in favor of the prisoner and the truth of all pleaded facts must be
assumed. Id.
"Personal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights cause of action."
Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983).
There is no vicarious or
respondeat superior liability of supervisors under section 1983. Thompkins v. Belt, 828
F.2d 298, 303-304 (5th Cir. 1987). See also Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183,
189 (5th Cir. 2011)(the acts of subordinates do not trigger § 1983 liability for supervisory
officials). If a plaintiff sues a defendant based on his role as supervisor, the Plaintiff must
show that (1) the supervisor failed to supervise or train the subordinate official; (2) a
causal link exists between the failure to train or supervise and the constitutional violation;
and (3) the failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2005).
Establishing a supervisor's deliberate indifference generally requires a plaintiff to
demonstrate "at least a pattern of similar violations." Rios v. City of Del Rio, Tex., 444
F.2d 417, 427 (5th Cir. 2006)(citations omitted).
A review of Plaintiff's claims shows that although he names Port Aransas Police
Chief Scott Burroughs in his individual capacity and as chief of police of the Port
Aransas Police Department, Plaintiff does not describe any action taken by Burroughs.
The only mention of Burroughs in the text of the complaint is Plaintiff's request for the
Court to order Burroughs to return all items to Petitioner or a family member.
Regarding Plaintiff's other claims, "[a] civil rights plaintiff must support his
4/7
claim(s) with specific facts demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not
simply rely on conclusory allegations." Shultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir.
1997). Plaintiff asserts that the search warrant was overbroad and also asserts that the
police exceeded the parameters of the search warrant. However, he does not describe any
circumstances underlying the issuance of the warrant, other than to say there was
"unnecessary drama" and a "hissy fit by a 3rd party" that resulted in the issuance of the
warrant. Without more detailed factual allegations, it is impossible to determine whether
Plaintiff has a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights based on the issuance
of the search warrant. Plaintiff also complains that items seized under the search warrant
were wrongfully used in a separate action in another jurisdiction. This allegation also is
devoid of facts and it is unclear whether Plaintiff can state a cause of action.
At this point Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Burroughs for violation of
his constitutional rights and has otherwise failed to show that his rights were violated by
any actions taken by the Port Aransas police department. However, pursuant to Rule
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend "shall be freely given when
justice so requires." If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff are
a proper subject of relief, he generally should be given an opportunity to test his claim on
the merits. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In determining whether to allow
a plaintiff to replead, courts look at factors such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party and the futility of the
amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. The considerations in Foman apply to prisoner
5/7
cases screened under the PLRA as well. See, e.g., Baca v. Joshi, No. 3:07-CV-2031-G,
2008 WL 2811317 (N.D. Tex. 2008)(court does not see a substantial reason to dismiss
prisoner's § 1983 claims without granting leave to amend).
Although Plaintiff has not sought leave to amend, he will be allowed to do so in an
effort to ensure that he has an opportunity to present all relevant facts. "[W]hen it is not
apparent from the face of the complaint whether the prisoner's contentions are frivolous
or not, the district court should make an effort to develop the known facts until satisfied
that either the claims have merit or they do not." Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 191
(5th Cir. 1992). See also Chavez v. First National Bank of South Africa, No. DR-15-065AM-VRG, 2015 WL 10818656 (W.D. Tex. 2015)(magistrate judge sua sponte granted
plaintiff leave to amend complaint to cure deficiencies noted in order). Accordingly,
Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint to set forth with as much
specificity as possible the facts supporting his allegations that Burroughs, or the City of
Port Aransas, or both, violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution.
If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his case, he is ORDERED to supplement his
complaint with sufficient facts from which it can be determined whether he has stated a
claim. Specifically, Plaintiff must provide the following information: (1) With regard to
Defendant Burroughs, Plaintiff must specify what actions Burroughs took or did not take
that resulted in a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; (2) Plaintiff must describe
facts underlying his allegation that the search warrant was overly broad; (3) Plaintiff must
describe the facts underlying his allegation that the officer or officers executing the
warrant exceeded its parameters; (4) If Plaintiff is alleging that the City of Port Aransas is
6/7
liable for any constitutional harm he may have suffered, Plaintiff must describe the facts
underlying his assertion (5) Plaintiff must describe the factual basis of his claim that the
items seized in Port Aransas were used in a legal proceeding in another jurisdiction. In
addition, Plaintiff must explain why his claim for money damages is not foreclosed by
the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).1
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to file his amended
complaint within 30 days of his receipt of this order. Plaintiff's motions for an order
compelling disclosure and discovery (D.E. 44) and for a hearing (D.E. 47) are DENIED
without prejudice.
ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2016.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held the following:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination,
or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or
sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Id. at 486-487 (emphasis in original).
7/7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?