Doe v. Harris County, Texas et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 3 , 4 , 6 , and 23 MOTIONS to Dismiss.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 29, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-3721

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.
Before the Court are the motions to dismiss of defendants’ Melissa Munoz and
Jamie Burro in their individual capacities [DE 4], Harris County, Texas and Ron
Hickman, in his official capacity [DE 3] and by Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott, in their
official capacities [DE 23].
The Court has reviewed the motions, responses and replies, if any, carefully
evaluated the facts and applicable law and determines that the motions should be granted
as to Melissa Munoz and Jaime Burro in their individual capacities, Harris County, Texas
and Ron Hickman, in his official capacity, Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott, in their official
capacities1.
II.

1

The case of Jane Doe, CV. No. H-16-2133(S. D. Tex. 2017) is instructive concerning the issues raised in this case.
The Court does not need to look beyond the statements of law, discussion and analysis presented there for resolution
of the case at bar. The Court, therefore, adopts the statements of law, discussion and analysis as the primary basis
for the resolution of this case, in that it is dispositive of the issues here.

1/5

This civil rights action, brought by Jane Doe, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
against county officials and Harris County arises because Harris County prosecutors,
Munoz and Burro, obtained a writ of attachment or bench warrant that caused the
plaintiff to be detained in Harris County jail some 49 days, more or less, past the date that
she was released from state custody on unrelated charges.
A rape suspect was arrested, held and tried based on a rape kit obtained from the
plaintiff at the time the offense was reported. Although the plaintiff cooperated with the
Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the prosecutors, Munoz and Burro, sought and
obtained an arrest warrant to insure the plaintiff’s presence for trial. Therefore, the
plaintiff was taken into custody by the Harris County Sheriff and moved to the Harris
County jail after being released to Harris County on December 18, 2015, to await trial of
the suspect on rape charges.
III.
Against Munoz and Burro, in their official capacities, the plaintiff asserts that,
based on official policy, or unofficial custom of jailing cooperating witnesses without
notice or opportunity to be heard, the defendants violated her Civil Rights, in violation of
42 U.S.C § 1983 and the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal
Constitution. The plaintiff’s claim arises as a result of issuance of a Bench Warrant out
of the 248th Judicial District Court and detention in Harris County jail.

Lastly,

concerning Munoz and Burro, the plaintiff asserts that their conduct was ratified by the
District Attorney.

2/5

The plaintiff also claims that Hickman, as Sheriff, and Harris County routinely
receives persons pursuant to Bench Warrants and Writs of Attachment. Because of
custom, practice and/or policy, Hickman and Harris County failed to bring individuals,
including the plaintiff, before a court for a bond hearing, provide appointed counsel
where approximate and in this instance intentionally “booked” the plaintiff as a charged
defendant. They otherwise acted with conscious indifference to the plaintiff’s civil rights
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
federal Constitution.

Again here, the plaintiff points to failed supervision, lack of

training, and/or the implementation of practices and policies that permit and/or ignore
unconstitutional conduct.
Finally, the plaintiff seeks injunctive and/or declaratory relief against Paxton and
Abbott in their official capacities pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
While the plaintiff does not specifically state facts that support injunctive or declaratory
relief, presumably, the conduct of Munoz and Burro, as state prosecutors, is the basis for
including the State Attorney General and Governor, respectively, in this suit.
IV.
A suit against Paxton and Abbott in their official capacities is a suit against the
State of Texas. Hayer v. Meo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). The plaintiff’s assertion that
Paxton and Abbott were included to insure jurisdiction over Munoz and Burro in the
event it is determined that they are State of Texas actors, reveals lack jurisdiction over
Paxton and Abbott. The plaintiff’s argument finds no basis in the pleadings and there are
no allegations that Paxton and/or Abbott officially or otherwise participated in the events
3/5

made the basis of the plaintiff’s suit. Assuming that Munoz and Burro are state officials,
sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment to the federal Constitution bars the
plaintiff’s suit as it does against Paxton and Abbott. Texas has not waived sovereign
immunity under section 5 of the Eleventh or Fourteenth Amendments, to the federal
Constitution. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
The plaintiff, therefore, does not and cannot state a cause of action against Paxton
and Abbott in federal Court. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668 (2009); Fed. R.
Civ. P., Rule 12(b)(6) (in the absence of participation and/or facts to the support
allegations, the plaintiff’s suit fails).
Munoz and Burro’s claim of absolute prosecutorial immunity from claims asserted
by the plaintiff under § 1983, is based in the view that they are advocates for the State of
Texas and, therefore, entitled to the benefits of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment. Case law supports the conclusion that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute
immunity when she appears in court in the course and/or role of an advocate for the State.
See Jane Doe v. Harris County, Texas et. al [(CA. No. 16-2133); [DE 62, pp. 23-52].
The Court, therefore concludes that this issue has been thoroughly treated in a companion
case, therefore, Munoz and Burro’s motion to dismiss should be granted. See Id.
Lastly, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s claims against Harris County
and Ron Hickman in his official capacity should be dismissed. The plaintiff does not
dispute the fact that Hickman was duty bound to comply with the court’s order regarding
the plaintiff’s custody. Nor does the plaintiff assert or present facts that support a finding
that Hickman exceeded his authority or, otherwise, misused the authority imposed.
4/5

Therefore, the Court determines that a § 1983 cause of action is unsuccessfully pled
against Harris County and Hickman.
It appears undisputed that it is the duty of the court issuing the warrant or writ of
attachment to scrutinize the conditions under which the witness was held. See Texas
Code of Crim. Procedure § 24.111. The record is clear that neither the 248th Judicial
District judicial officers, nor the court, are parties to this litigation. It is there that the
State and federal civil rights claims should have been enforced. Therefore, Harris County
and Hickman’s motion to dismiss is granted.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on this 29th day of March, 2018.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge

5/5