Baker v. City of Clute et al
OPINION on Dismissal. The facts Baker has articulated - after amending his complaint twice - do not support a legal claim against the City of Clute. Its officers had a job to do, and they did it. His claims will be dismissed. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
UNffiD STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
City of Clute,
October 11, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Civil Action H-r6-2068
Opinion on Dismissal
A citizen filed a complaint, it turned into an arrest warrant, and police officers
executed the warrant. The arrestee sues the city and its police department but only
describes claims against the citizen or maybe the county. His case will be dismissed.
Baker says he is 28 days short because when he was fifteen years old a woman
conned her daughter and the City of Clute into conspiring against him to humiliate his
father who was running against her uncle for municipal judge.
The City says its officers received a complaint from a citizen, gave their report
to their supervisor, and he sent it to the District Attorney for Brazoria County. She
presented it to the juvenile court judge; he ordered a warrant for Baker's arrest. The
officers carried out written orders from the judge - they arrested Baker.
At the hearing of his son's case - who is now an adult - Baker's father kept
interrupting, was allowed to speak, became disruptive, and asked to wait in the hall.
What Baker and his father have presented to the court does not address the City or its
police officers. Their actions were simply thoughtful processing.
Clute Police Department.
Baker named Clute Police Department as a separate defendant. It is not a legal
entity; it is part of the City of Clute. It will be dismissed as improvidently joined because
it does not have a jural existence.
Ciry of Clute.
Baker has no claim against the City. For a city to be liable, it must have a policy
that is the moving force behind a violation of a constitutional right. With no violation
of Baker' s constitutional rights, no policy could have been a moving force. The Cityon the facts that can be mustered - did nothing wrong. Baker has not stated a claim
against the City that is recognized by law.
Baker has no claim for false arrest. False arrest is (a) willful detention,
without consent, and (c) without authority of law. I A valid arrest is an absolute bar to
a claim of false arrest.2. Officers had a valid arrest warrant issued by a court of competent
No facts support Baker's claim for malicious prosecution. Officers took the
complaint, sent it to the county, and got an arrest warrant. They had no room to be
malicious because the warrant was not defective on its face. 3
The facts Baker has articulated - after amending his complaint twice - do not
support a legal claim against the City of Clute. Its officers had a job to do, and they did
it. His claims will be dismissed.
Signed on October IO, 20I6, at Houston, Texas.
~~ ~------Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge
IS ears , Roebuck & Co. 11. Castillo, 693 s.w.2d 374,375 (Tex. I985)·
Brown, 637 s.w.2d 9I4 (Tex. I982); Cantu
Botello, 9IO s.w.2d 65 (Tex. App.
Corpus Christi I995).
3Ramsry 11. Arrott, 64 Tex. 320, 322 (I885); Richry 11. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 s.w.2d 5I5,
5 I 7 (Tex. I997)'
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?