Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PETER DAVID WINEGARNER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1157-L

§

CITY OF COPPELL, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Peter David Winegarner (“Plaintiff”)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint stems from criminal proceedings initiated

against him by the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office in or around June 2004 related to a

domestic violence dispute involving his wife, Pamela Winegarner, and culminating in his conviction

in Dallas County Criminal Court No. 11 in Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MA-03-

19135-N. In a nutshell, he complains that his constitutionally protected rights were violated when

Defendants subjected him to unlawful seizure, malicious abuse of process, malicious prosecution,

harassment and intimidation, denial of his right of access to the courts, and denial of due process.

He alleges that, among other things, the District Attorney’s Office brought criminal charges against

him even though he notified them that he objected to the charges; that City of Coppell Police Chief

Roy Osborn, with the help of Officer Scott Peters, failed to notify the District Attorney’s Office of

Plaintiff’s objections to the criminal charges; that numerous witnesses, including Misti Masters,

Clint Goodman and Todd Bourland, lied about several events and circumstances concerning

Plaintiff’s alleged assault on his wife; that prosecutors Kendall Castello and Kimberly Miller helped

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01157-L Document 93 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID 496
1

On August 28, 2006, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order, granting the Dallas County

Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against them and denying without prejudice to refiling the

Dallas County Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s pendent state law claim of defamation in the event all federal

claims were dismissed.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

the District Attorney’s Office pursue criminal charges against him even though they knew he was

innocent; and that while typing the trial transcript, the court reporter during his criminal trial, Vielica

Dobbins, inserted words into Plaintiff’s testimony. In addition to his § 1983 claims, Plaintiff also

alleges a state law claim for defamation.

I. Plaintiff’s Claims Against the City Defendants1

Pursuant to a Standing Order of Reference, issued September 8, 2005, this case was referred

to United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney for pretrial management. On September 13,

2006, the City of Coppell, Misti Masters, Clinton Goodman, Scott Peters, Chief Roy Osborn and

Todd Bourland (collectively referred to as the “City Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (the “City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”). On February 7, 2007, United

States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney issued the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge (hereinafter, the “Report”), recommending that the City

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983

claims, and denied to the extent it asks for dismissal of this lawsuit in its entirety. 

A. The § 1983 Claims

As to the City of Coppell, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983

claims because Plaintiff’s complaint lacked allegations regarding the required elements necessary

for relief against a municipality under § 1983. See Report at 5-9 (and cases cited therein). As to

City Defendants Scott Peters and Roy Osborn, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, concluding that, even viewing Plaintiff’s allegations as true, they were

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01157-L Document 93 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID 497
2

The magistrate judge also considered whether Plaintiff should be given leave to amend, in light of the fact that

he is proceeding pro se. The magistrate judge concluded that leave to amend should not be provided, given that Plaintiff

was already permitted to, and did, amend his complaint multiple times, and was therefore given a “fair chance to plead

his case.” See Report at 14 (and cases cited therein). 

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

entitled to qualified immunity since Plaintiff had failed to alleged a constitutional violation against

them. See id. at 9-11 (and cases cited therein). As to City Defendants Misti Masters, Clinton

Goodman and Todd Bourland, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims be

dismissed, as each was protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity afforded to witnesses who

testify at trial.2

B. The State Law Defamation Claim

With regard to Plaintiff’s state law claim (which was not addressed in the City Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss), the magistrate judge recommended that the court maintain jurisdiction over this

lawsuit, stating that Defendants Casey Sessions (City of Coppell police officer) and Marisa Elmore

(Assistant District Attorney of Dallas County) were “added to this suit” on May 1, 2006, and federal

claims are still pending against them. In light of the existence of pending federal claims, the

magistrate judge reasoned, the issue of whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim was not ripe.

II. Objections

On February 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. The court has considered his

objections and overrules them. The gist of the objections is Plaintiff’s argument that his federal

claims should not have been dismissed because his state law claim is still pending. The disposition

of these claims is unrelated. 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01157-L Document 93 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID 498
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4

III. Discussion

Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, the findings and conclusions of

the magistrate judge in his Report, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court accepts in part and rejects

in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court accepts that portion of the Report

recommending that the City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted to the extent it asks for

dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983, and denied to the extent it asks for dismissal of this lawsuit in its

entirety. The court need not reiterate the magistrate judge’s analysis of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim

against the City Defendants, as it has already referenced the relevant portions of his Report above.

The court rejects that portion of the Report, however, where the magistrate judge states that

Defendants Casey Sessions and Marisa Elmore were “added to this suit” on May 1, 2006. Pending

before the magistrate judge is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Parties. See Order

(May 31, 2006) (Stickney, M.J.) (construing Plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Addendum Corrections as

motions for leave to amend his petition and construing Plaintiff’s Joinder of Parties as a motion for

leave to add parties). Also before the magistrate judge are objections filed by the Dallas County

Defendants to the motions, filed June 9, 2006. 

IV. Conclusion

Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, the findings and conclusions of

the magistrate judge in his Report, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court overrules Plaintiff’s

objections and determines that the findings and conclusions are correct in recommending that the

City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted to the extent the motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s

§ 1983 claims, and denied to the extent the motion seeks dismissal of this lawsuit in its entirety. 

The findings and conclusions are incorrect, however, as to the magistrate judge’s statement that

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01157-L Document 93 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID 499
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5

Defendants Casey Sessions and Marisa Elmore were “added to this suit” on May 1, 2006. 

Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are accepted in part, as herein stated,

as those of the court. The court grants in part and denies in part the City Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss. The court grants the City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against

them, and hereby dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against these Defendants. The

court denies without prejudice the City Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to the City

Defendants’ request to be dismissed entirely from this suit. In the event all federal claims are

dismissed in this lawsuit, the City Defendants shall be permitted to once again seek dismissal of

Plaintiff’s pendent state law defamation claim. Further, in light of this memorandum opinion and

order, the court denies as moot Defendants’,City of Coppell, Clinton Goodman, Chief Roy Osborn,

Scott Peters, Misti Masters, and Todd Bourland, Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 30,

2006 (Docket No. 68). Finally, the court directs the Clerk of Court to remove the names of Casey

Sessions and Marisa Elmore as Defendants in this suit at this time, as the magistrate judge has not

yet ruled whether they should be added as Defendants.

It is so ordered this 5th day of April, 2007.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01157-L Document 93 Filed 04/05/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID 500