Verastique v. City of Dallas, 106 F.4th 427

Plaintiffs were peaceful protestors during the 2020 George Floyd demonstrations in Dallas and allege they were subjected to excessive force and wrongful arrest by Dallas police.
The plaintiffs sued the City of Dallas, Dallas County, and the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various constitutional violations, primarily excessive force and false arrest.
Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the City of Dallas failed to discipline an officer, Rudloff, despite a long history of alleged violent misconduct, making the City liable under Monell for a "failure to discipline" pattern.
Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of General Order 609.00, a Dallas Police Department policy regarding arrests in civil unrest situations, as facially unconstitutional.
The district court dismissed all claims against the City (and other defendants), holding the Monell claims insufficiently pled; plaintiffs appealed only the dismissal of their claims against the City.
On appeal, a panel majority affirmed the dismissal, but a dissent argued the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged deliberate indifference by the City based on the officer’s disciplinary history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Monell Failure to Discipline	City's lack of discipline for Officer Rudloff's pattern demonstrated deliberate indifference.	No viable pattern or similarity in complaints; complaints too few and spread over 23 years.	Pattern not sufficiently specific, similar, or numerous to show deliberate indifference by the City.
Facial Attack on General Order 609.00	Policy permitted unconstitutional discretionary arrests without guidance.	Policy does not mandate or affirmatively allow unconstitutional conduct; officers still bound by law.	Policy is not facially unconstitutional; dismissal appropriate.
Policymaker Liability	Dallas police chief Hall was delegated policymaker authority for discipline.	Only the City Council is the policymaker; complaint insufficient on delegation.	Complaint fails to plead an unconstitutional policy/custom regardless of policymaker.
Similarity and Frequency	Series of aggressive, unjustified force complaints against Rudloff establish a pattern.	Incidents cited not factually similar to plaintiffs' experiences; too infrequent for notice.	Incidents not sufficiently similar or frequent to establish notice or a pattern.

Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001) (municipal liability under § 1983 for failure to discipline requires pattern of similar violations and deliberate indifference)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (deliberate indifference for Monell liability requires persistent, similar prior violations)
Johnson v. Harris County, 83 F.4th 941 (5th Cir. 2023) (Monell claims require specific and similar prior incidents)
Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) (pleading standard in civil rights cases does not require heightened specificity)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for stating a claim)
Edwards v. City of Balch Springs, 70 F.4th 302 (5th Cir. 2023) (official written policy only facially unconstitutional if it affirmatively authorizes unconstitutional conduct)