Hall vs. Robinson, et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part denying in part 8 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Redundant Official Capacity Claims and State Tort Claims Under 101.106, Texas Tort Claims Act Against Nominal Defendants Robinson and Brooks (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kpicota)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MICHELLE HALL and DANNY HALL
individually and A/N/F of
M. S . H. a minor
I

§
§
§
§
§
§

I

I

Plaintiffs

l

v.

ROBERT EMERSON ROBINSON
THOMAS D. BROOKS and
HARRIS COUNTY

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-3474

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

I

I

I

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending
(Document
response

I

is

Defendant

No.8).

Harris

After

County/s

carefully

and applicable law

l

Motion

considering

to

Dismiss

the

motion

l

the Court concludes as follows.

I. Background
Plaintiffs Michelle Hall and Danny Hall
next friend of minor M.S.H.
Robert

Emerson

Robinson

( "Defendantsll) . 1

l

("Plaintiffs

Thomas

Robinson was

juvenile supervision officer

l

D.

ll

)

Brooks

l

individually and as

I

bring suit against
I

and

employed by Harris

Harris

County

County as

and Brooks is the Executive Director

of the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department ("HCJPDII).2

1

Document NO.6 (1st Am. Cmplt.).

2

Id.

~~

6-7.

a

In May of 2012, M.S.H., a 15-year-old female, was housed at
the Harris County Juvenile Justice Center ("HCJJC")
allege

that

during

her

incarceration,

Plaintiffs

3

Robinson,

a

juvenile

supervision officer assigned to the boys unit, regularly visited
M.S.H., harassed her, and ultimately raped her.4
Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C.

§

1983 against all

Defendants, and against Robinson alleges torts of assault, battery,
and

intentional

infliction

of

emotional

distress. 5

Defendant

Harris County moves to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against
Defendants Robinson and Brooks as duplicative of the claims against
Harris County.6

Harris County also moves to dismiss the state law

tort claims against Robinson and Brooks on the grounds that the
Texas Tort Claims Act ("TTCA") requires employees to be dismissed
from

a

suit

when

tort

claims

are

brought

against

both

a

governmental unit and its employees.?

3

Id.

~

9.

4 Id. ~~ 9-13.
Robinson allegedly confessed to committing
sexual assault and rape, has been charged with sexual assault of a
minor, and is on bail awaiting trial. Id. at 5.
5

Id.

~~

20-28.

6 Document No.8.
Defendants Robinson and Brooks have not
answered the lawsuit. Document No. 12 at 1.
7

Document No.8.
2

II. Discussion
A.

Legal Standard
Rule 12(b) (6) provides for dismissal of an action for "failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
When a

12(b)(6).

district court reviews

FED. R. CIV. P.

the sufficiency of a

complaint before it receives any evidence either by affidavit or
admission,

its task is inevitably a limited one.

Rhodes, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1686 (1974).

See

Scheuer v.

The issue is not whether the

plaintiff ultimately will prevail,

but whether the plaintiff is

entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.

Id.

In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6), the
district

court must

construe

the

allegations

in

the

complaint

favorably to the pleader and must accept as true all well-pleaded
facts
117

in

the

complaint.

F.3d 242,

247

(5th

See

Cir.

Lowrey v.
1997).

To

Tex.

A&M Uni v .

survive

Sys . ,

dismissal,

a

complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face."
1955,

1974

(2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

"A claim has

facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable

inference

misconduct alleged."
(2009) .

While

a

that

the defendant

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,

complaint

"does

not

is

129 S.
need

liable for
Ct.

1937,

detailed

the
1949

factual

allegations . . . [the] allegations must be enough to raise a right

3

to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true
fact)."
B.

(even if doubtful in

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65.

Analysis

Harris County argues that the Section 1983 claims against
Brooks should be dismissed on the grounds that they are duplicative
of the claims against the County. 8

It is undisputed that all

claims against Brooks are against him "in his official capacity as
the Executive Director of the Harris County Juvenile Probation
a department of Defendant Harris County. 9

Department,"
Plaintiffs'
they

are

Because

claims are against Brooks in his official capacity,
claims

dismissed as

against

redundant.

his

employer

Harris

County

See MCCoy- Eddington v.

and

Brazos

are

Cnty.,

Civ.A. H-05-0395, 2007 WL 1217989, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2007)
(plaintiff's claims against director of Brazos County Department of
Juvenile Services
Brazos

County,

"are considered claims against her employer,

and

are,

given

that

Brazos

County

is

also

a

Defendant, redundant.").

Document No.8 at 1-2.
9 Document No.
6
No. 12 at 2, 5.

~

7. See also Document No.8 at 1i Document
4

Plaintiffs

assert

that

the

Section

1983

Robinson are brought in his individual capacity.10

claims

against

As Section 1983

does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing an action against a
government
survive.

official
See

in

his

Kentucky v.

individual

Graham,

105 S.

(distinguishing personal-capacity suits,

capacity,
Ct.
which

these

claims

3105

(1985)

3099,

"seek

to

impose

personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes
under color of state law," from official-capacity suits, which are
another way of pleading an action against the state entity for
which the officer works) .
Harris County also contends that Plaintiffs' intentional torts
claims are inconsistent with the TTCA and should be dismissed. 11
The TTCA provides, "[i]f a suit is filed under this chapter against
both a governmental unit and any of its employees,

the employees

shall immediately be dismissed on the filing of a motion by the
governmental unit."
(West 2011) .12

TEX. CIV. PRAC.

&

REM. CODE .ANN.

§

101. 106 (e)

Plaintiffs assert claims against both Robinson and

Document No. 8 at 2 i Document No. 6 ~ 6 ("ROBINSON . . . was
acting in his capacity as a juvenile supervision officer and under
color of state law."). To the extent that Plaintiffs are alleging
official capacity claims against Robinson, an HCJPD employee, they
are dismissed for the reasons stated above.
10

11

Document No.8 at 2.

12 See also Mission Consolo
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253
S.W.3d 653, 659 (Tex. 2008) ("Because the Tort Claims Act is the
only, albeit limited, avenue for common-law recovery against the
government, all tort theories alleged against a governmental unit,
whether it is sued alone or together with its employees, are

5

the County under Section 1983,
against only Robinson.13

but bring state law tort claims

As Section 1983 claims are not brought

under the TTCA, Plaintiffs have not filed suit 'under this chapter'
against

both

101.106 (e)

Harris

County

is inapplicable.

and

its

employees,

and

Estate of Shane G.

See

Sorrells v.

City of Dallas, 45 Fed. Appx. 325, 2002 WL 1899592, *4
2002)

(per curiam)

Dallas

were

Section

(5th Cir.

("The Sorrell Family's state law claims against

not

claims

'under

this

because Dallas was only sued under

§

chapter,'

1983.")

i.e.,

the

TTCA,

(citing Bell v. Love,

923 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Tex. App. 1996)); Green v. Nueces Co., Tex.,
Civ. A. No.
2010)

C-09-316,

(Jack, J.)

2010 WL 918972, at *5

(S.D. Tex. Mar. 15,

("Section 101.106 (e) does not apply in this case

because Plaintiff has not filed suit 'under this chapter against
both

a

governmental

unit

and

any

of

its

employees.'

While

Plaintiff has asserted a Section 1983 claim against both sets of
Defendants, such a claim is not brought 'under this Chapter.'").
III.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED

that

Defendant

Harris

County's

Motion

to

Dismiss

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Document No.8) is GRANTED as

assumed to be under [the Tort Claims Act] for purposes of Section
101.106.") (alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted).
13

Document No. 6

~~

20-28.
6

to all claims against Defendant Thomas D. Brooks, who is DISMISSED
as a defendant; and as to claims against Defendant Robert Emerson
Robinson in his official capacity, and all claims against Defendant
Robinson

in his

official

capacity are

DISMISSED.

Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss is otherwise DENIED.
The Clerk shall notify all parties and provide them with a
signed copy of this Order.

~

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this

~~Of

July, 2013.

~~~\J __ .
UNITED

7

WERLEIN, JR.
TES DISTRICT JUDGE

r