John Quinn v. Jesus Guerrero
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12290
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Around 12:06 a.m. on August 4, 2006, McKinney SWAT executed a search warrant at John Quinn’s home for his adult son; police allegedly used stun grenades, made a forced no-knock entry, and an officer shot Quinn through a closed bedroom door, wounding his hand.
- Quinn sued in Texas state court (2008) asserting state-law claims (assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy) and sought punitive damages; the City moved to dismiss the officers under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(e).
- The state court dismissed the officers under § 101.106(e) and ordered Quinn to replead if he intended federal claims; Quinn later amended to add 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims.
- Defendants removed to federal court after the federal causes were pled; Quinn’s remand motion was denied. The district court dismissed the individual officers’ federal claims as time-barred and dismissed all claims against the City (state and federal).
- Quinn’s post-removal attempt to revisit the 2008 state-court dismissal was denied as untimely and meritless. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of remand | Quinn: original state petition referenced federal concepts ("excessive force") so removal clock began earlier; removal untimely | Defs: federal claims were not affirmatively pled until amended petition; removal timely after amendment | Affirmed: remand reviewed for plain error; original petition ambiguous and did not establish federal-question jurisdiction, removal proper. |
| State-court dismissal of officers under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(e) | Quinn: § 101.106 should not bar intentional-tort claims against officers; dismissal deprives open-courts remedy | City: TTCA/election-of-remedies requires dismissal of officers when suit pursues claims against governmental unit | Affirmed: Texas law (Garcia/Bustos) permits dismissal; officers properly dismissed. |
| Statute of limitations on § 1983 claims vs. tolling/relation back | Quinn: state-court proceedings or relation-back/identity-of-interest should toll or save his federal claims | Defs: state suit did not prevent filing a federal § 1983 suit; plaintiff delayed and relation-back/identity doctrines inapplicable | Affirmed: no tolling; limitations expired before federal claims were timely pleaded; relation-back and identity-of-interest do not salvage claims. |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell) and state TTCA claims against City | Quinn: alleged City policies/customs (no-knock entry, failure to train/discipline, "threat matrix", website praising SWAT) — discovery should be allowed | City: Quinn pleads no official policy/custom or training defect causally linked to violation; alleged facts sound in intentional tort (immunity) | Affirmed: state claims barred by governmental immunity (claims arise from intentional acts); federal Monell pleading insufficient and discovery would be futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.) (procedural standard for remand review)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (consequences of failing to object to magistrate judge R&R)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (limited jurisdiction of federal courts and federal-question requirement)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (plaintiff as master of the claim; federal question must appear on face of well-pleaded complaint)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex.) (application of TTCA election-of-remedies and dismissal principles)
- Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458 (5th Cir.) (application of Garcia to dismissal of employee defendants under § 101.106(e))
- Jackson v. Jackson, 950 F.2d 263 (5th Cir.) (limits on equitable tolling where prior proceedings do not prevent filing a new suit)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing constitutional violation)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (relation-back doctrine limitations)