Darian Baker v. City of Clute
693 F. App'x 324
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Feb 13–14, 2014 a Clute Police Department officer sought and obtained a warrant to arrest Darian Baker for making a terroristic threat based on a teenager’s report of threatening texts; Baker was arrested and detained until Feb 19; charges later dismissed.
- Baker (pro se) filed a § 1983 suit against the City of Clute and CPD alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Texas tort claims, seeking $1 million.
- The City moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); CPD was not a separate legal entity and thus not a distinct defendant.
- The district court held hearings, allowed Baker two amendments, and granted the City’s motion to dismiss; Baker appealed.
- On appeal, Baker argued (1) denial of due process in the district-court proceedings, (2) error in dismissal for failure to state a municipal-liability claim, and (3) denial of a continuance for discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker was denied due process by dismissal | Baker: lacked notice/opportunity to respond to motion and hearings | City: Baker received the motion >14 days before first hearing and had notice the court might rule at hearings | Court: No due process violation; Baker had adequate notice and opportunity |
| Whether complaint pleaded municipal liability under § 1983 | Baker: municipal liability not dependent on pleading a policy or custom | City: § 1983 municipal liability requires pleading a municipal policy/custom and causation | Court: Dismissal proper—complaint failed to plead a policy/custom and causation |
| Whether Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was improper (plausibility) | Baker: facts alleged suffice to state claims | City: allegations target individual conduct, not municipal policy; thus not plausible municipal claim | Court: Review de novo; Iqbal/Twombly apply; plaintiff failed to state a plausible municipal claim |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying continuance for discovery | Baker: needed discovery before ruling on motion to dismiss | City: Baker did not request a continuance below | Court: Argument waived because Baker did not move for continuance in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing due process challenges)
- Hines v. Alldredge, 783 F.3d 197 (5th Cir.) (12(b)(6) review standard)
- True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412 (5th Cir.) (12(b)(6) principles)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536 (5th Cir.) (elements of municipal liability under § 1983)
- Pineda v. City of Houston, 291 F.3d 325 (5th Cir.) (municipal liability framework)
- Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973 (5th Cir.) (dismissal proper when required element not alleged)
- Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694 (5th Cir.) (failure to seek continuance below waives appellate challenge)