Stephens v. City of Houston et al, No. 4:2020cv03553 - Document 10 (S.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stephens v. City of Houston et al Doc. 10 Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 7 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JUSTIN AUGUSTUS STEPHENS, Inmate #305591, § § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, V. CITY OF HOUSTON, HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, and SHERIFF ED GONZALEZ, Defendants. December 04, 2020 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-20-3553 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Justin Augustus Stephens ( Inmate #305591; former SPN #02258243), has filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint") (Docket Entry No. 1) regarding his arrest by officers employed by the City of Houston Police Department. Because the plaintiff is a prisoner who proceeds in forma pauperis, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that the Complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 28 U.S.C. After considering all of the pleadings, the court concludes that this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 7 I. Background Public records reflect that Stephens is presently in custody at the Montgomery County Jail on charges of theft and evading arrest in Montgomery County Cause Nos. 20-07-07967 and 20-0707969 .1 Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Stephens now sues the City of Houston, the Houston Police Department ("HPD"), and Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, alleging that he was falsely arrested without a warrant and charged with theft by HPD officers on October 10, Stephens discloses that the officers ·arrested him for 2018.2 stealing one bottle of beer from a Fiesta grocery store after reviewing video in an upstairs room at the store. 3 As a result of that arrest, Stephens was taken to the Harris County Jail and subsequently released on bond.4 According to Stephens, felony theft charges were filed against him in Cause No. 1608271 Harris County, Texas. 5 in the 351st District Court of Stephens reports that these theft charges 1 See Montgomery County Jail Roster, available http://jailroster.mctx.org (last visited April 22, 2019). at: Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-5. All page numbers for docket entries in the record refer to the pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's electronic filing system, CM/ECF. 2 3 Id. at 4, 5. 4 Id. at 5. 5 Id. at 7. -2- Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 7 were dismissed in June of 2019. 6 Public records confirm that charges of theft were filed against Stephens in Harris County Cause No. 1608271 accusing him of stealing one alcoholic beverage. 7 Before releasing Stephens on bond a magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to detain him on the theft charges, and Stephens was later indicted on those charges by a grand jury. 8 The indictment reflects that the charges were enhanced for purposes of punishment as a state jail felony with allegations that Stephens had at least two prior theft convictions from Florida. 9 The charges were subsequently dismissed at the State's request on June 4, 2019, because Stephens had already served 90 days in custody on the theft charge. 10 Stephens explains that he spent 90 days in custody because his bond was revoked after he failed to appear in court. 11 Arguing that he spent 90 days in custody as the result of a false arrest, 6 Id. at 8. All See Criminal Complaint in Cause No. 1608271, p. 1. public records referenced in this paragraph of the Memorandum Opinion and Order are available from the Office of the Harris County District Clerk at: http://www. hcdistrictclerk. com (last visited Nov. 30, 2020). 7 See "Statutory Warnings by Magistrate - Probable Cause for Further Detention - PR Bond/Bail Order," p. 1, and Indictment in Cause No. 1608271, p. 1. 8 9 See Indictment in Cause No. 1608271, p. 1. 10 See State's Motion to Dismiss Cause No. 1608271, p. 1. 11 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5. -3- Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 7 Stephens now seeks compensatory damages for mental anguish, loss of work, and legal fees associated with his 2018 arrest. 12 He also seeks punitive damages. 13 II. Discussion The only defendants named in this case are the City of Houston, HPD, and Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must "enunciate a set of facts that illustrate the defendants' participation in the wrong alleged." Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Stephens does not allege facts showing that Sheriff Gonzalez had any involvement Complaint. in the arrest that forms the basis of his As a result, Stephens fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted against Sheriff Gonzalez. To the extent that Stephens blames HPD for his false arrest, his claims fail for other reasons. As a subdivision of the City of Houston, HPD lacks capacity and is not subject to suit. See FED. R. Crv. P. 17; Maxwell v. Henry, 815 F. Supp. 213, 215 (S.D. Tex. 1993); see also Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 31314 (5th Cir. 1991) (concluding that, as an agency or subdivision of the city, the city police department lacked capacity to be sued as an independent entity) ; Custer v. Houston Police Dep' t, 12 See id. 13 See id. -4- Civil Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 7 Action No . H 17-1338, 2017 2017) (dismissing claims a separate to sue or legal be WL against entity from sued). 5484114, after HPD the City, Therefore, *2 (S.D. Tex Nov. 15, at any finding that it was not and did not have the power claim against HPD must be dismissed. Stephens against also City the Complaint. cannot maintain of Housto n based I t is well claim a on theory a wrongdoing committed by its of employees. municipal liability facts the established that a vicariously liable under for asserted municipal respondeat entity tortfeasor liable under original). or, § is other as the result of attributable to the 1 municipality directly 5 88 almost is unconstitutional act acts words, because it superior theory.") on a City employs a held (emphasis in constitutionally deficient policy of F .3d attributable See Peterson v. City Houston. 838, 847 (5th Cir. liable never the part 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001)). state a of that a municipality cannot be to it ' through claim Absent -5- the City ("A isolated it is liable only some official action of Houston, 237 such a showing, for relief against 2009) an for of an employee ; or imprimatur.'") (quoting Piotrowski v. City not for See Monell v. Dep' t solely a 1983 on a respondeat s, -=o-=f'---=cF--=oc-=r=-t=--'W o i:= -=t=h=--<---=T'-'e=-=x=a= for liable is not Stephens does not allege facts showing that his rights were violated that in held the superior Social Svcs., 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978) ("[ W ] e conclude municipality cannot be in of F.3d Stephens does Houston. Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 7 More importantly, Stephens does not demonstrate that his arrest was, in fact, false. To prevail on a claim of false arrest, the plaintiff must show that there was no probable cause to arrest him. See Haggerty v. Texas Southern Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 655 (5th Cir. 2004). The fact that the theft charges against Stephens were dismissed at the State's request after he served 90 days in custody is not proof that the police lacked probable cause for the arrest or that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. As noted above, a magistrate judge found probable cause to detain Stephens on the theft charges, and a grand jury returned an indictment against him on those charges. Under these circumstances Stephens cannot prevail on a claim of false arrest. v. Pugh, 95 S. Ct. 854, 865 n.19 (1975) See Gerstein (observing that "an indictment, 'fair upon its face,' and returned by a 'properly constituted grand jury,' conclusively determines the existence of probable cause . ."); see also Russell v. Altom, 546 F. App'x 432, 436-37 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) ("When the facts support ing an arrest 'are placed before an independent intermediary such as a magistrate or grand jury, the intermediary's decision breaks the chain of causation for false arrest, insulating the initiating party.'") (quoting Cuadra v. Haus. Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808, 813 (5th Cir. 2010)). Because Stephens has failed to state a viable claim upon which relief may be granted, his Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B). -6- Case 4:20-cv-03553 Document 10 Filed on 12/04/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 7 III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights filed by Justin Augustus Stephens (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. The dismissal will count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 u.s.c. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the plaintiff and to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 4th day of December, 2020. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
