David Sims v. City of Madisonville
894 F.3d 632
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- David Sims, an MPD sergeant (2004–2012), reported that his supervisor, Sgt. Jeffrey Covington, solicited other officers to plant drugs on Covington’s wife; Covington was later indicted and convicted for related misconduct.
- Sims discovered and copied audio recordings and found an investigative file about him on the department network; he provided evidence to a Texas Ranger.
- Sims was placed on probation after missing court, investigated for allegedly accessing Covington’s files, and terminated in July 2012 for violating the MPD Computer Use Agreement; state felony charges were later dismissed.
- Sims sued the City in Texas state court under the Texas Whistleblower Act; the state court dismissed his claim with prejudice on governmental immunity grounds.
- Sims then filed § 1983 claims in federal court against the City and Covington (First and Fourteenth Amendment theories and conspiracy). The district court granted summary judgment for the City on res judicata and for Covington on qualified immunity; Sims appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-final decisionmaker (Covington) can be individually liable for First Amendment retaliation | Sims: Covington’s retaliatory recommendations and actions were a but-for cause of his termination | Covington: Only final decisionmakers can be liable; uncertainty in precedent shields him via qualified immunity | Court: Jett’s causal-link rule governs; non-final decisionmakers can be liable, but immunity applies because law was unsettled in 2012; summary judgment for Covington affirmed |
| Whether Covington violated procedural due process/property interest under Tex. Gov’t Code § 614.023(c) | Sims: Statute (and MPD policies) required investigation/notice before termination, creating a property interest | Covington: § 614.023(c) does not create a constitutionally protected property interest; qualified immunity applies | Court: Stem controls; § 614.023(c) alone does not create a property interest and MPD did not expressly adopt the statute into policy; claim barred by qualified immunity |
| Whether Covington violated liberty interest (name‑clearing) by stigmatizing Sims or causing malicious prosecution | Sims: Termination and prosecution based on false evidence deprived him of liberty and reputation | Covington: No authority to provide name‑clearing hearing; plaintiff didn’t plead malicious‑prosecution claim below | Held: Liberty claim against Covington not properly pleaded; even if asserted, Covington entitled to qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law and lack of authority to provide hearing |
| Whether the City is precluded (res judicata) from § 1983 suit after state dismissal | Sims: Federal § 1983 claims are different and could not have been litigated in state court | City: State-court dismissal with prejudice bars later claims arising from same occurrence under Texas claim‑preclusion law | Court: Texas law applies; prior dismissal on governmental immunity was a judgment on the merits; the claims arose from the same transaction and could have been raised; res judicata bars City claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Culbertson v. Lykos, 790 F.3d 608 (5th Cir.) (discussing unsettled law on liability of nonfinal decisionmakers in First Amendment retaliation cases)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 798 F.2d 748 (5th Cir.) (individual liability for retaliation depends on causal link, not final‑decision status)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑step framework and discretion to address clearly established prong)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (prior mandatory sequence for qualified immunity analysis described)
- Stem v. Gomez, 813 F.3d 205 (5th Cir.) (§ 614.023(c) does not by itself create a constitutionally protected property interest)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (distinguishing speech pursuant to official duties in First Amendment employment claims)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (explaining cat’s paw doctrine in employer liability contexts)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (federal courts must give state‑court judgments the same preclusive effect as state law)