Daniel Roberts v. Bexar County Sheriff's Dept, et
687 F. App'x 392
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel A. Roberts appealed the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 civil-rights complaint and denial of a Rule 59(e) motion; he also sought leave to proceed IFP.
- District court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and certified the appeal was not taken in good faith.
- Roberts alleged Detective Jesus Ochoa obtained a “facially invalid” arrest warrant and had previously told Roberts there was no evidence against him; he suggested the warrant was retaliatory.
- Roberts’s pleading did not identify statements in the warrant application or explain why the warrant was facially invalid, nor did his proposed amendment cure those defects.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo under the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard and considered whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of complaint to show unconstitutional warrant procurement | Roberts: Ochoa sought and obtained a facially invalid warrant; prior remark that no evidence existed supports claim | Govt/County: Pleadings do not allege facts showing how warrant was invalid or what statements were made to obtain it | Complaint fails plausibly to state a claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Retaliation claim based on warrant procurement | Roberts: Warrant was issued in retaliation for his allegations of misconduct | Defense: Plaintiff did not identify allegations in the warrant application or factual basis for retaliation | Retaliation not pleaded plausibly; claim fails |
| Denial of leave to amend | Roberts: Should be allowed to amend to correct defects | Defense: Plaintiff had opportunity and proposed amendment would not cure deficiencies | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld |
| IFP status / good-faith certification of appeal | Roberts: Sought IFP and contested bad-faith certification | Defense: District court certified appeal not in good faith based on dismissal grounds | IFP denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous; sanction warning issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (good-faith certification and interplay with merits review)
- Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 1998) (§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal reviewed like Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir. 1988) (pleading requirements for claims against law enforcement)
- Smith v. Gonzales, 670 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1982) (standards for showing arguable error in criminal-procedure related civil claims)
- Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. NCAA, 751 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial to amend)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2013) (appealability and frivolous-appeal standards)
- Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1988) (sanctions and restrictions for frivolous filings)