Cano v. Garcia
21-50742
| 5th Cir. | May 16, 2022Background
- On November 16, 2018, Andres Cano was beaten by Mark Garcia and an unidentified assailant (John Doe); Cano reported the attack to the Kirby Police Department, which did not investigate.
- Cano repeatedly asked the Kirby police to investigate over the next two years; no further attack occurred.
- Cano sued in federal court asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the City of Kirby and several officers, and state-law tort claims against Garcia and John Doe.
- The district court dismissed Cano’s federal claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) but did not state whether dismissal was with or without prejudice; it declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice.
- Under Fifth Circuit precedent, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal that does not specify prejudice is treated as with prejudice, effectively barring refiling in federal court.
- Cano appealed; the Fifth Circuit reviewed jurisdictional issues de novo and evaluated whether Cano had standing to pursue his failure-to-investigate federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue over police failure to investigate | Cano contends the police inaction injured him and is redressable by § 1983 claims | Defendants contend victims lack standing to challenge investigative/prosecutorial inaction | Held: Cano lacks standing; failure-to-investigate claims are not cognizable (Lefebure/Linda R.S. principles) |
| Effect of district court failing to specify prejudice on dismissal | Cano impliedly argued dismissal should permit refiling | Defendants relied on precedent treating unspecified dismissals as with prejudice | Held: Unspecified Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is ordinarily treated as with prejudice, but standing defects require dismissal without prejudice |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims | Cano argued district court abused discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction | Defendants argued the court properly declined and dismissed state claims without prejudice | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissal without prejudice was proper |
| Appropriate remedy for lack of standing | Cano sought leave to proceed or refiling ability in federal court | Defendants maintained the dismissal should stand as entered | Held: Because the issue is standing, federal claims must be dismissed without prejudice (allowing refiling if standing later exists); judgment modified accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650 (5th Cir. 2021) (crime victims lack standing to challenge investigative or prosecutorial inaction)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen lacks standing to compel prosecution of another)
- Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2004) (unspecified dismissals for failure to state a claim are treated as with prejudice)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (Rule 41(b) dismissal ordinarily operates as an adjudication on the merits unless order states otherwise)
- Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2021) (standing defects require dismissal without prejudice)
- St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2009) (district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims)