Robert Groden v. City of Dallas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10918
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Groden sold Kennedy-assassination books at Dealey Plaza and alleges local businesses (notably the Sixth Floor Museum) complained about him.
- After a city spokesperson announced a “crack down” on vendors in Dealey Plaza, Dallas police Sergeant Frank Gorka arrested Groden under a city ordinance prohibiting sales in parks; city courts later held Dealey Plaza is not a park and quashed the indictment.
- Groden sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the City of Dallas adopted a retaliatory “crackdown policy” to suppress annoying but protected speech and that Gorka acted pursuant to that policy (a Monell claim).
- The district court dismissed Groden’s Monell claim under Rule 12(b)(6), reasoning Groden failed to identify the municipal policymaker and failed to plead an unconstitutional policy or causation.
- A jury returned a general verdict for Officer Gorka at trial; Groden’s post-trial new-trial motion was denied; he appealed the dismissal of the city-level claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Monell complaint must plead the identity of the municipal policymaker | Groden: not required; plead facts showing a policy attributable to the policymaker | Dallas: complaint must identify the specific policymaker | Court: Identity is a question of law; plaintiff need only plead facts showing a policy promulgated/ratified by the policymaker |
| Who is the policymaker for the City of Dallas | Groden: alleged city spokesman announced policy so the city council (the city policymaker) should be attributable | Dallas: argued dismissal should stand; identity was contested | Court: Under Texas law the Dallas City Council is the final policymaker (Bolton); Groden pled facts (spokesperson announcement) permitting inference council promulgated/ratified policy |
| Whether Groden pleaded an unconstitutional municipal policy | Groden: alleged a policy of arresting vendors without probable cause to retaliate against protected speech | Dallas: argued no facially unconstitutional policy pled; ordinance (not policy) was at issue and causation not shown | Court: Groden alleged a crackdown policy that authorized arrests without probable cause to suppress protected speech; that sufficiently alleges an unconstitutional policy |
| Whether the alleged policy was the moving force causing his arrest | Groden: alleged Gorka acted pursuant to the crackdown policy and city communications targeted vendors | Dallas: argued lack of causation and that a jury verdict for Gorka forecloses city liability | Court: Groden pled facts tying Gorka’s arrest to the crackdown policy; jury’s general verdict for Gorka does not foreclose appeal because qualified-immunity issues prevent knowing what the jury decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires official policy by policymaker that is the moving force behind a constitutional violation)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 135 S. Ct. 346 (per curiam) (pleading factual allegations suffices; imperfect statement of legal theory is not a basis to dismiss)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (identification of municipal policymakers is a question of state law)
- Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 588 F.3d 838 (5th Cir.) (elements for Monell liability articulated)
- Bolton v. City of Dallas, Tex., 541 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.) (under Texas law, Dallas City Council is final policymaker)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (retaliatory arrests in connection with protected speech implicate constitutional concerns)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (per curiam) (general verdict rules and limits when qualified immunity presented to jury)