Maria Pena v. City of Rio Grande City, Texa
879 F.3d 613
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Maria Peña was tased by Rio Grande City officers during an encounter after an altercation involving her father; barbs struck her scalp and back, she fell and suffered facial/ dental injuries.
- Peña sued the city, Lt. Jose Solis, and Officer Rosa Salinas in Texas state court alleging § 1983 excessive force and TTCA negligence; case was removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Peña sought leave to amend her complaint after removal but the district court denied leave (citing futility), dismissed the officers, and entered judgment for the city.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held the district court erred by refusing to consider Peña’s proposed amended complaint and applied the federal pleading standard to removed cases when defendants challenge pleadings.
- The appellate court found Peña’s proposed pleading plausibly stated Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims against Salinas (continued tasing and initial tase of a non-suspect) and supervisory liability against Solis for ordering the tase, but rejected municipal Monell and TTCA claims against the city.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and remanded for the district court to consider qualified immunity in the first instance and to allow consideration of Peña’s proposed amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading standard after removal | Peña: State "fair notice" pleading governs pre-removal filings; FRCP 8 inapplicable before repleading | City/Officers: Federal pleading standard applies upon removal when defendants challenge pleadings | Federal plausibility standard (Iqbal/Twombly) applies to removed cases where defendants challenge pleadings; district court should have allowed amendment to meet that standard |
| Leave to amend / procedural sufficiency | Peña: She sought leave to amend and attached proposed complaint initially; clerical failure to attach later draft should not be fatal | City/Officers: Futility of amendment justifies denial | District court abused discretion by denying leave solely for failure to attach proposed complaint; appellate court reviewed futility de novo |
| Excessive force against Salinas and Solis | Peña: Officers used objectively unreasonable force—Salinas tased a non-suspect fleeing juvenile and continued tasing after Peña was subdued; Solis ordered the tase | Officers: Use of taser to stop fleeing suspect may be reasonable; QI may bar suit | Proposed amended complaint plausibly states Fourth Amendment claims: continued tasing after subdual is clearly excessive; initial tase plausibly excessive given allegation Peña was not a suspect; supervisory liability against Solis plausible for ordering the tase; remanded to address QI |
| Municipal liability and TTCA claims | Peña: City had policy/practice and failed to train re: tasing minors/moving targets; TTCA waives immunity for negligent aiming/use | City: Alleged written taser policy allows moving-target tasing; single incident and policy not causally linked; TTCA does not waive for intentional torts | Monell claims and TTCA negligence claim fail at pleading stage: Peña did not plead a municipal policy/ratification or pattern showing deliberate indifference; TTCA waiver inapplicable because claim stems from intentional battery-type conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim supported by factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard and need for factual enhancement)
- International Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Group, Ltd., 818 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.) (federal pleading standard applies when removed case implicates federal-court jurisdictional questions)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Graham factors govern objective-reasonableness in excessive-force claims)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (municipal liability requires pattern or rare single-incident exception; deliberate-indifference standard)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (single-incident failure-to-train theory explained)
- Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (5th Cir.) (continued use of force after resistance ends can be excessive)
- Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 866 F.3d 698 (5th Cir.) (tasing a non-resisting suspect held objectively unreasonable)
- Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353 (5th Cir.) (TTCA does not waive immunity for claims that effectively allege intentional battery/excessive force)
- Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838 (5th Cir.) (evidence of a pattern for municipal liability requires substantial factual support)