Stephen Stem v. Ruben Gomez
813 F.3d 205
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Stephen Stem, a Hearne, Texas police officer, shot Pearlie Golden in May 2014 after she allegedly pointed a gun at him; Golden later died. Protests followed and the Hearne City Council met on May 10 and discharged Stem after the mayor and city attorney announced they would recommend termination. Stem alleges he never received a signed, written complaint before dismissal.
- A Texas grand jury declined to indict Stem in September 2014. In October 2014 Stem sued the City of Hearne and the mayor (official and individual capacity), asserting a § 1983 due-process claim and state-law declaratory relief under Texas Gov’t Code § 614.023 and seeking back pay and reinstatement.
- § 614.023 requires that a copy of a signed complaint be given to an officer and that disciplinary action based on a complaint not proceed unless the complaint is investigated and there is evidence proving the alleged misconduct.
- The district court dismissed Stem’s suit for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, and denied leave to amend; Stem appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 due-process claim (no property interest created by § 614.023), affirmed dismissal of monetary/state claims as barred by sovereign immunity, but reversed denial of leave to amend the state-law declaratory claim and remanded for the district court to explain its exercise of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over § 1983 claim | Stem alleged a federal due-process deprivation under § 1983; court has federal-question jurisdiction | City argued no property interest existed so federal jurisdiction lacked basis | Court: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error; jurisdictional challenge folded into merits and complaint raised nonfrivolous federal claim |
| § 1983 procedural-due-process: did § 614.023 create a property interest? | Stem: § 614.023(c) creates a for-cause-like protection—officers cannot be terminated based on a complaint unless investigated and proven—so he had a protected property interest | City: § 614.023 supplies procedural steps only and does not abrogate Texas at-will presumption or create a substantive entitlement | Court: § 614.023 does not meaningfully limit discharge discretion or create a constitutionally protected property interest; § 1983 claim fails |
| State-law declaratory relief and monetary damages | Stem sought back pay and reinstatement under Texas declaratory statute and alleged city officials violated § 614.023 | City: sovereign immunity bars retrospective relief; ultra vires doctrine limits prospective relief to appropriate officials | Court: retrospective relief (back pay) barred by sovereign immunity; prospective relief (reinstatement) could proceed only under ultra vires doctrine against proper officials; Stem failed to plead proper official-capacity defendants (only mayor pleaded) so dismissal of those claims was proper |
| Denial of leave to amend | Stem proposed amendments to (1) allege city adoption of § 614.023, (2) show past compliance, (3) name councilmembers/police chief, (4) request prospective relief | City defended dismissal and district court denied leave (district court gave no explanation) | Court: denial of leave to amend as to state-law claims was reversible error because proposed amendments to state-law claims were not futile; remanded for district court to reconsider and explain its exercise of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (property interests in employment derive from independent sources and trigger predeprivation procedures)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (nonexistence of a cause of action is not a proper basis for jurisdictional dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply plausibility standard and draw reasonable inferences for pleadings)
- Henderson v. Sotelo, 761 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1985) (pretermination procedures in a charter did not create a property interest)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (factors for declining supplemental jurisdiction; comity and judicial economy)
- Heinrich v. El Paso, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (sovereign immunity and the ultra vires exception for prospective relief under Texas law)