Davis v. City Of Galveston et al, No. 3:2013cv00287 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to the Fourteenth Amendment Claim of Davis and that claim is DISMISSED; denying as moot 6 Motion for Sanctions which the Court has previously cured Davis pleading violations through redactions.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION REGINALD DEON DAVIS V. CITY OF GALVESTON, ARCHIE CHAPMAN, JR. and JOSE H. SANTOS, JR. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. G-13-287 OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court, with the consent of the Parties, is the Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions of Defendants, City of Galveston, Archie Chapman, Jr. and Jose H. Santos, Jr.; the Motion seeks the dismissal of the excessive use of force claim asserted under the Fourteenth Amendment by Plaintiff, Reginald Deon Davis, and the imposition of sanctions for Davis alleged pleading violations. In his Complaint, Davis alleges that he was the victim of unnecessary and excessive force at the hands of Galveston police officers Chapman, Santos and three other unidentified officers during his arrest on March 19, 2013, in Galveston, Texas. In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that All claims that law enforcement officers had used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard, rather than under a substantive due process approach. Since it is clear that any alleged use of excessive force occurred during Davis arrest and not during any subsequent pretrial detainment, his only remedy is under the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Gutierrez v. City of San Antonio, 139 F.3d 441, 452 (5th Cir. 1998) No amount of discovery will support Davis claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Instrument no. 6) the Fourteenth Amendment Claim of Davis is GRANTED and that claim is DISMISSED. The Court has previously cured Davis pleading violations through redactions and the Defendants Motion for Sanctions (Instrument no. 6) is, therefore, DENIED as moot. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 31st 2 day of October, 2013.
]]>
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.
