Rawlings v. Houston Independent School District

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 21 days.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm Smith) Parties notified.(jmarchand)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
J OHN R AWLINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
H OUSTON INDEPENDENT S CHOOL
D ISTRICT,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

C IVIL A CTION N O. 4:13-CV-418

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This free speech retaliation suit is before the Court on Houston Independent School
District’s (“HISD” or “District”) motion to dismiss. The motion is granted.
I.
The following allegations are accepted as true for the purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.
In late July 2009, Plaintiff John Rawlings, an employee of the HISD Police
Department, met with staff of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. Rawlings
reported that members of the HISD Police Department command staff were using official
vehicles for private profit while off duty. A few months later, Rawlings was told that top
HISD staff members were aware of his report to the District Attorney.
In November of 2010, a subordinate of Plaintiff Rawlings accused him of making
inappropriate remarks in the workplace. An investigation ensued, and HISD found that the
plaintiff had violated HISD Police Department Directives related to Obedience, Harmony

and Cooperation and Respect for Others. On February 17, 2011, Rawlings received a notice
that his employment had been recommended for termination. Plaintiff unsuccessfully
appealed his termination. Rawlings asserts that termination of his employment was an act
of retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment right to report suspected illegal conduct
of coworkers.
II.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a private right of action for violations of constitutional
rights –including deprivation of free speech under the First Amendment, through an act of
retaliation. A municipality may be held liable for a First Amendment retaliation claim “when
execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers” or those who
execute official policy, “inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible
under § 1983”. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
The Court considers the defendant’s motion to dismiss in accordance with the Monell
standard.
When considering a motion to dismiss, the “court accepts all well-pleaded facts as
true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. ” Martin K. Eby Constr. Co.
v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal
quotation omitted). However, only facts are entitled to an assumption of truth; legal
conclusions unsupported by factual allegations do not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 663 (2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead

-2-

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 663.
III.
Rawlings alleges a violation of his First Amendment speech rights based on retaliation
by the defendant. However, the plaintiff’s complaint does not present factual content that
provides any reason to believe that his termination is a result of an unconstitutional HISD
policy or custom. The plaintiff’s claim merely references isolated actions taken by specific
municipal employees. A school district cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an
injury inflicted by its employees or agents based on a theory of vicarious liability or
respondent superior liability. Board of County Com’rs of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520
U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Doe v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch.Dist., 113 F.3d 1412, 1416 (5th Cir.
1997). Thus the plaintiff’s retaliation claim is dismissed without prejudice.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, Rawlings’s § 1983 claim against the Houston Independent
School District is dismissed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days from
the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in the entry of final judgment.

Signed at Houston, Texas on July 20, 2013.

-3-