Ybarra v. City Of Houston, 4:24-cv-00584

Plaintiffs James Ybarra and Patricia May sued the City of Houston and former police officer Gerald Goines under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
Plaintiffs alleged Goines planted drugs on them, resulting in wrongful arrests and convictions.
The City previously succeeded in dismissing the § 1983 claims, but state-law malicious prosecution claims remained.
The City filed a new motion to dismiss the remaining malicious prosecution claims under state law, citing governmental immunity.
Plaintiffs argued the City was acting in a proprietary (not governmental) function, which would preclude immunity.
The court considered whether immunity applied under the Texas Tort Claims Act to bar these state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City is immune from suit for state-law malicious prosecution	City acted in a proprietary function, not entitled to immunity	Immunity applies; Texas Tort Claims Act bars intentional tort claims	Immunity applies; claim dismissed
Whether the Texas Tort Claims Act waives immunity for intentional torts	Waiver under proprietary function exception	No waiver for intentional torts like malicious prosecution	No waiver; claim fails
Nature of officers' conduct (gov’t vs proprietary)	Officers acted for private benefit, thus City is non-governmental	Officers acted in governmental capacity as police officers	Governmental function found
Dismissal with prejudice	Amendment might cure deficiencies	Amendment would be futile due to immunity	Dismissed with prejudice

Wasson Ints., Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 559 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2018) (distinguishes between governmental and proprietary functions for municipal immunity)
Poole v. City of Killeen, 999 F.2d 1580 (5th Cir. 1993) (Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive governmental immunity for intentional torts such as malicious prosecution)