1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

CHRISTIAN BLANCHARD,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CITY OF TYLER POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, SGT. W. GARDNER, 

OFFICER A. REEVES,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00368-JCB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Christian Blanchard, proceeding pro se, brought the instant civil action on July 

25, 2023. (Doc. No. 1). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

in this action. (Doc. No. 9). Because Plaintiff requested to proceed IFP, the court reviewed the 

pleadings in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (Doc. No. 10) and provided Plaintiff 

an opportunity to amend her complaint. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed her amended 

complaint in this matter. (Doc. No. 14). Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court now reviews these 

allegations. 

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 

claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment against Sergeant W. Gardner, Officer A. Reeves, 

and the City of Tyler Police Department. (Doc. No. 1.) The claims arise from events that occurred 

at Plaintiff’s home on July 31, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that she was having a psychotic episode 

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:

71
2

caused by withdrawal from her seizure medication, Ativan. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Officer 

Reeves told EMS that Plaintiff was “just drunk” which led Sergeant Gardner to sign Plaintiff AMA 

and have her transported to jail instead of being transported to receive medical treatment, which 

Plaintiff contends she needed. (Doc. No. 1-1, at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that she was at risk of death 

due to Ativan withdrawal and suffered permanent injuries that are still unknown. Id. at 4. Plaintiff 

alleges that she is now unable to work due to these life-altering injuries. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further 

alleges that she was disabled at the time of the incident, and presented no threat to officers but 

nonetheless was tasered and pepper sprayed. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff alleges that she was so withdrawn 

that she did not even react to the pepper spray. Id. at 8. 

Plaintiff alleges that she was ultimately transported to jail on charges of aggravated 

kidnapping, but that due to her physical state, it was impossible for her to have kidnapped anyone. 

Id. at 7. It appears that Plaintiff believes that the charges arose from a misunderstanding where she 

believed a person who came to deliver her groceries was her own daughter and therefore did not 

want her to leave. Id. at 7–8. Again, Plaintiff alleges that her confusion was not the result of alcohol 

intoxication, but due to her Ativan withdrawal. Id. According to Smith County jail records, 

Plaintiff was booked in the Smith County Jail on charges of Aggravated Kidnapping, Assault 

Causing Bodily Injury, and Interference with Emergency Request for Assistance on July 31, 2021 

and released on March 31, 2022. The record reflects that Plaintiff received a mental health 

transport and the District Attorney (DA) ultimately declined to prosecute the charges. Plaintiff 

seeks damages in the amount of $5,000,000. 

II. The Court’s Initial Screening Order

The court reviewed Plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to §1915(e)(2). (Doc. No. 10.) 

In reviewing the complaint, the court found that Plaintiff had stated a plausible claim for excessive 

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:

72
3

use of force under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court noted that her complaint failed to 

identify which officer or officers used each instance of excessive force described. Id. at 5. For sake 

of clarity for the court and defendants, the court directed Plaintiff to name the defendant(s) she 

believed used excessive force against her. 

Further, the court found that Plaintiff had failed to plead a claim for false arrest or unlawful 

detention under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she had not alleged facts that could allow the court to 

infer that the criminal proceedings against her lacked probable cause. Id. at 6. 

Finally, the court informed Plaintiff that her claim against the Tyler Police Department 

cannot proceed because Fifth Circuit precedent does not allow municipal police departments that 

do not have a separate legal status to be sued independently from the city. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint 

did not sue the City of Tyler as a defendant or otherwise allege that the City of Tyler gave the Tyler 

Police Department any separate legal status or authority to sue or be sued. Id.

After identifying these deficiencies in its initial screening order (Doc. No. 10), the court 

provided Plaintiff two opportunities to amend her complaint (Doc. Nos. 10, 13). Plaintiff 

eventually filed her first amended complaint on October 24, 2023. (Doc. No. 14). 

III. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

In her amended complaint, Plaintiff specifies that she has physical impairments that have 

been impeding her ability to prosecute the case and recall the events of her arrest. (Doc. No. 14, at 

1.) Plaintiff does not state who tased her but indicates that she believes it was Defendant Gardner 

who signed an AMA allowing EMS to leave the scene and that Defendant Reeves wrote the 

incident report and was the one who took her to jail instead of to the hospital. Id. Plaintiff indicates 

that there is body camera footage available, but that she does not possess it. Id. Further, Plaintiff 

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:

73
4

attaches her medical records (Doc. No. 14-1), an incident report (Doc. No. 14-2), and a summary 

of her medical records (Doc. No. 14-3.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides that: 

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the 

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

(B) the action or appeal—

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted where it does not allege 

sufficient facts which, taken as true, state a claim which is plausible on its face and thus does not 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See Montoya v. FedEx Ground Packaging Sys. 

Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (To state a plausible claim for relief, a pleading must contain 

(1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the 

relief sought”). A claim has factual plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court 

to draw reasonable inferences that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Hershey 

v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 610 F.3d 239, 245 (5th Cir. 2010); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). A pleading offering “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action” will not suffice, nor does a complaint which provides only naked 

assertions that are devoid of further factual enhancement. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:

74
5

The pleading of a pro se plaintiff is to be “liberally construed” and is “held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Nevertheless, even with pro se litigants, 

“conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions” are not 

sufficient for a well-pleaded complaint. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th 

Cir. 2002) (quoting S. Christian Leadership Conf. v. S. Ct. of State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th 

Cir. 2001)). If the facts alleged in a complaint do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct, a plaintiff has not shown entitlement to relief. See Rios v. City of Del 

Rio, Tex., 444 F.3d 417, 421 (5th Cir. 2006).

DISCUSSION

Construing the allegations liberally, the court interprets Plaintiff’s complaints to allege: (1) 

violations of the Fourth Amendment for excessive use of force; and (2) violations of the Fourth 

Amendment for false arrest and unlawful detention. 

A. Claims Against Individual Officers 

Plaintiff alleges that despite being compliant with the commands of the officers, she was 

tased three times and pepper sprayed and tased two more times while she was lying on the ground 

for not turning over. (Doc. No. 1-1, at 4–5.) Plaintiff states that after the use of force, the body cam 

shows her lying on the ground unconscious and a voice can be heard asking if Plaintiff was 

breathing. Id. at 5. Here, Plaintiff has plainly alleged that the use of force was excessive to the 

need because she has alleged that, at the time force was used, she was disabled and physically 

incapacitated. Moreover, given the facts alleged, it can be inferred that the use of force was 

objectively unreasonable as Plaintiff alleges that she was tased twice while lying on the ground. 

See Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas, 880 F.3d 722, 731 (5th Cir. 2018) (finding that facts 

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:

75
6

alleged that officer threw plaintiff to the ground and tased him twice were sufficient to state a 

violation of a constitutional right for excessive use of force). In her amended complaint, Plaintiff 

is unable to identify with certainty which officer allegedly used excessive force on her, but she 

indicates that body camera footage does exist. (Doc. No. 14, at 1.) Plaintiff further elaborates on 

her physical condition, which has allegedly gotten worse. Id. As such, these claims should proceed 

past the initial screening stage. 

Further, Plaintiff continues to state that she was taken to jail instead of the hospital when 

she was mentally and physically incapacitated. (Doc. No. 14, at 1.) According to Smith County 

Jail records, Plaintiff was arrested on-view, without a warrant, on July 31, 2021, for Assault 

Causing Bodily Injury and Interference with Emergency Request for Assistance. These charges 

were dropped as the DA declined to prosecute. On that same date, Plaintiff was also arrested on 

warrant number 114-1527-21 for Aggravated Kidnapping, which was disposed of by a mental 

health transport. Plaintiff was released on March 31, 2022. With respect to her arrest for 

Aggravated Kidnapping pursuant to a warrant, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that the arrest 

lacked probable cause and there are no facts alleged from which the lack of probable cause could 

be inferred. Plaintif’s additional charges for Assault Causing Bodily Injury and Interference with 

Emergency Request for Assistance, however, were the result of a warrantless arrest and resulted 

in favorable termination. 

Having screened these claims and construed them liberally in Plaintiff’s favor, the court 

has determined that they should proceed past the initial screening stage. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Gardner and Reeves for violations of the Fourth Amendment may 

proceed past the initial screening stage and Plaintiff will be separately ordered to serve her 

complaint and summonses on Defendants Gardner and Reeves. 

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:

76
7

B. Claims Against The City of Tyler Police Department

Although Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not specify that she intends to continue 

asserting a claim against the City of Tyler Police Department, she also has not explicitly dropped 

them from this action. Plaintiff’s original complaint indicates that she has sued the City of Tyler 

Police Department. (Doc. No. 1.) Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party to a lawsuit 

must have the capacity to be sued. Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b). A department of a local government entity 

must “enjoy a separate legal existence” to be subject to a lawsuit. Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep’t, 

939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). The Fifth Circuit has held that Texas law does not allow county 

or municipal police departments to be sued directly. Id. at 313–14; see also Crull v. City of New 

Braunfels, Texas, 267 F. App’x 338, 341– 42 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (“Therefore, the Police 

Department is not a separate legal entity apart from the City and the district court did not err in 

dismissing the claims against the Police Department.”).

Here, the City of Tyler Police Department is indisputably a subsidiary department of the 

City of Tyler. Plaintiff does not allege that the City of Tyler has provided any jural authority to the 

Police Department to engage in litigation or even that the City of Tyler Police Department has a 

separate legal existence.1 Accordingly, the City of Tyler Police Department cannot be sued in its 

own name. See Darby, 939 F.2d at 313. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s 

claims against the City of Tyler Police Department be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Traditionally, district courts are required to permit a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to 

amend her complaint or claim before dismissing the case. However, as Plaintiff has already been 

given an opportunity to amend and has pleaded her “best case,” any further amendment would be 

futile. See Norman v. Tex. Court of Criminal Appeals, 582 F. App’x 430, 431 (Mem) (5th Cir. 

1 Plaintiff also makes no allegations against the City of Tyler itself. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:

77
8

2014) (unpublished); Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the 

court declines to afford Plaintiff an additional opportunity to amend her complaint at this juncture. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the court RECOMMENDS that that Plaintiff’s claims against 

the City of Tyler Police Department be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants Gardner and Reeves shall proceed past the initial screening stage and a separate 

order will issue instructing Plaintiff on service. 

 Within 14 days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may serve and 

file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in this Report. A party’s 

failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in 

this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo

review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except on 

grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of October, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00368-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/31/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:

78