Gomez v. Galman
18 F.4th 769
5th Cir.2021Background
- Jorge Gomez, a military veteran, was harassed and beaten unconscious at a New Orleans bar by two off‑duty NOPD officers, John Galman and Spencer Sutton. The officers were not in uniform or openly identifying themselves when the harassment began.
- After the bar assault, the officers ordered Gomez to stop and exit his vehicle; Gomez alleges he complied because they acted like police and used a "police hold," and Sutton later called NOPD dispatch identifying himself as an officer.
- Gomez sued the officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (constitutional claims) and asserted several state‑law claims (assault, battery, false arrest, negligent hiring/retention/supervision, vicarious liability, IIED).
- The district court dismissed all § 1983 claims (finding officers were not acting under color of law) and dismissed several state claims against the City; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims.
- The Fifth Circuit held Gomez pleaded sufficient facts to show the officers plausibly acted under color of law (orders, police hold, call to dispatch), reversed dismissal as to the officers’ § 1983 claims, but affirmed dismissal of Gomez’s Monell claim and several other City claims.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the City’s Monell, vicarious‑liability, and IIED claims, reversed dismissal of the § 1983 claims against Galman and Sutton and the state negligent hiring/retention/supervision claim, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers acted "under color of law" for §1983 | Gomez: officers used their authority (orders, police hold, he believed he was not free to leave) so their conduct was by virtue of state authority | Defendants: off‑duty, not in uniform, acting in a personal capacity — not acting under color of law | Court: Reversed district court; pleaded facts (orders, police hold, call to dispatch) sufficiently allege action under color of law to survive dismissal |
| Whether City liable under Monell (official policy/custom) | Gomez: City had policies/customs (hiring unqualified, failure to train, "Blue Code") and DOJ/monitor reports show ongoing problems | City: no specific policy linked to this incident; reports show remediation and do not demonstrate deliberate indifference | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Gomez failed to plead an official policy or deliberate indifference sufficient for Monell liability |
| Whether failure‑to‑train or hiring/retention Monell theories apply | Gomez: DOJ/monitor reports and prior incidents show systemic failures making the officers’ conduct predictable | City: reports are too general or remote; prior incidents not similar enough to show the specific risk | Court: Dismissed — allegations insufficient to show pattern or that the injury was a highly predictable consequence of training/hiring failures |
| State law claims: negligent hiring/retention/supervision, vicarious liability, IIED | Gomez: employment provided unique opportunities and City negligently selected/supervised officers; City liable under respondeat superior; IIED based on extreme conduct | City: no duty for negligent hiring under these facts; officers acted outside scope so no vicarious liability; IIED not pled as to City | Court: Negligent hiring/retention/supervision claim survives (sufficient allegations of "unique opportunities"); vicarious liability and IIED against City dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§1983 requires defendant acted under color of state law)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (defines acts under color of law and personal pursuits exception)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom)
- Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (deliberate indifference standard for hiring/retention Monell claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not conclusory)
- Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2010) (framework for assessing whether off‑duty officers acted under color of law)
- United States v. Tarpley, 945 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1991) (officer actions acting "by virtue of state authority" can be under color of law)
- Gros v. City of Grand Prairie, 209 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2000) (connection between officer's background and specific violation must be strong for Monell hiring claims)
- Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001) (single violation ordinarily cannot establish municipal custom)