Christopher Lock v. Cindia Torres
694 F. App'x 960
5th Cir.2017Background
- At a 2012 wedding reception, Harris County Constable deputies Torres (uniformed) and Frances (plainclothes) intervened after bartenders stopped serving alcohol; an altercation occurred involving groom’s father Robert Meyer and Deputy Kevin Meyer.
- Torres escorted Robert Meyer out; Deputy Kevin Meyer and other guests confronted deputies; Torres and Frances directed some people to leave and threatened arrest for trespass.
- Christopher Lock and Deputy Kevin Meyer were arrested by Torres (Lock for criminal trespass; Kevin Meyer for interfering with public duties). Sergeant McQueen later arrived and spoke with Lock; accounts conflict whether McQueen gave Lock permission to reenter.
- An assistant district attorney reviewed charges without being told the arrestees were officers and a magistrate (Judge Pam Derbyshire) found probable cause; charges were later dismissed.
- Kevin Meyer and Lock sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging arrest without probable cause, failure to intervene/supervise (Frances, McQueen), and municipal liability against Harris County for customs/policies; district court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torres arrested without probable cause | Torres lacked probable cause to arrest Lock and Kevin Meyer | Torres had knowledge supporting a prudent belief a crime occurred; magistrate later found probable cause | Arrest claims barred by independent-intermediary doctrine; qualified immunity for Torres |
| Whether Frances and McQueen failed to intervene or supervise | Frances failed to protect; McQueen failed to supervise and acquiesced | Neither officer caused or encouraged the arrests; McQueen was not present during the alleged constitutional violation | Claims against Frances and McQueen barred; independent-intermediary doctrine breaks causal chain; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether McQueen’s presence/supervision suffices for supervisory liability | McQueen’s later actions or alleged permission created liability | Supervisory liability requires presence/acquiescence at the scene to attach | No supervisory liability; McQueen not present during violation and did not acquiesce |
| Whether Harris County is liable under Monell for customs/training | County had unconstitutional customs (inadequate training, supervision, retention, records) causing arrests | No underlying constitutional violation by officers, so no municipal liability | Municipal liability fails because no constitutional injury by employees; summary judgment for county |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 536 U.S. 731 (2011) (plaintiff bears burden to show clearly established right)
- Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (right to be free from arrest without probable cause is clearly established; officer entitled to immunity for reasonable mistakes)
- Cuadra v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808 (5th Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment standard for claims that intermediary was tainted)
- Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police Dep’t, 824 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2016) (independent-intermediary doctrine breaks causal chain if intermediary’s decision was not tainted)
- Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir. 1988) (taint to intermediary can defeat the independent-intermediary doctrine)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability requires showing training/policy was moving force behind constitutional violation)
- Shields v. Twiss, 389 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (no municipal liability where no underlying constitutional violation by employees)