Source: https://casetext.com/case/hitt-v-city-of-pasadena
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 10:42:02
Document Index: 548473546

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 1350', '§ 1983', '§ 1343', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606 | Casetext
Hitt v. City of Pasadena
Kuwait Pearls Catering Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc.
" Crenshaw-Logal v. City of Abilene, Texas, No. 11-10264, 2011 WL 3363872, *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2011),…
. . .'" In re Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co., 624 F.3d 201, 209 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ramming v. United…
Full title:RICKY D. HITT, KATHLEEN HITT AND CHARLOTT CROSS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,…
Date published: Oct 19, 1977
561 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1977)
holding that where there are grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b) for lack of jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the "court should dismiss only on the jurisdictional ground . . . without reaching the question of failure to state a claim"
Summary of this case from Haynes v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
No. 77-2043. Summary Calendar.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
The plaintiffs in this case are the surviving children of Charles A. Hitt. They brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981- 1983 against the mayor and City of Pasadena, Texas, and against unknown police agents of that city. They allege that their father, while in custody of the Pasadena police, suffered a beating that later proved fatal. Shortly after their complaint was filed the defendants filed an answer and a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). The plaintiffs' attorneys acknowledge certain defects in their pleadings but say that they received verbal assurances from the court clerk that he would briefly delay submitting the defendants' motion to dismiss, in order to allow them time to amend the complaint. Whatever the facts of this matter may be, the plaintiffs' attorneys failed to file a motion for leave to amend until after the court had dismissed the complaint with prejudice. At the same time that the plaintiffs filed for leave to amend they also filed a motion for rehearing and for a new trial, both of which were denied by the trial court. The plaintiffs appeal from the original dismissal of their case with prejudice, as well as from the denial of the rehearing. We reverse the district court's dismissal with prejudice and remand for dismissal without prejudice.
The district court's order dismissing the case was apparently based both on want of federal jurisdiction as well as on failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Ordinarily, where both these grounds for dismissal apply, the court should dismiss only on the jurisdictional ground under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), without reaching the question of failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1350 (1971). Dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim is a decision on the merits and essentially ends the plaintiff's lawsuit, whereas a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds alone is not on the merits and permits the plaintiff to pursue his claim in the same or in another forum.
It is not clear from the district court's opinion whether each claim against each defendant was dismissed on both grounds, i.e., want of jurisdiction as well as failure to state a claim. But even supposing that it were proper to reach the 12(b)(6) issue as to all of the defendants, the district court's dismissal on the merits with prejudice was unduly harsh under the circumstances of this case.
Since a city is not a "person" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, jurisdiction was wanting of the City of Pasadena under this statute's companion jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1343; this grants jurisdiction in § 1983 cases only where "authorized" by law. As to the second defendant, the mayor, the original complaint did not allege any personal involvement in the beatings. Apparently in support of the argument that no claim was stated against him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he stated in an uncontested affidavit that he had neither known about nor authorized nor participated in any way in the alleged beatings. Finally, the original complaint did not name the police chief as a defendant, although plaintiffs sought to add him as a defendant in an amended complaint.
As a general guide to the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has said: "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). It is the well-established policy of the federal rules that the plaintiff is to be given every opportunity to state a claim. As this court has often stated, a complaint is not subject to dismissal unless "it appears to be a certainty that the plaintiff cannot possibly be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of its allegations. Even then, a court ordinarily should not dismiss the complaint except after affording every opportunity [for] the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief [can] be granted." Byrd v. Bates, 220 F.2d 480, 482 (5th Cir. 1955). See also Black v. First National Bank of Mobile, 255 F.2d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 1958); Robertson v. Johnston, 376 F.2d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1967). With respect to the question of a dismissal with prejudice, this court has said: "In the decided cases it is recognized that the dismissal of a case with prejudice is a drastic remedy to be used only in those cases where a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice." Brown v. Thompson, 430 F.2d 1214, 1216 (5th Cir. 1970).
Summary of this case from Breeding v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
Summary of this case from Oliveira v. Martins
Summary of this case from Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. Stubenrauch
holding that where there are grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b) for lack of jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the “court should dismiss only on the jurisdictional ground ... without reaching the question of failure to state a claim”
Summary of this case from Tatum v. Bd. of Supervisors for the Univ. of La. Sys.
Summary of this case from Watson v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc.
holding that when there is both a want of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) and a failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b), the trial court should dismiss on the jurisdictional ground without reaching the question of failure to state a claim
Summary of this case from United States ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
Summary of this case from Crespo v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Summary of this case from New Orleans Gulf Coast Railway Company v. Barrois
Summary of this case from Bowens v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Summary of this case from Taylor v. Dam
holding that a dismissal for want of jurisdiction should be employed when dismissal is appropriate for both a want of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim
Summary of this case from Dalworth Oil Co. v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.
reversing the dismissal of a case and remanding with the order that the dismissal be entered without prejudice to the plaintiffs' rights to submit an amended complaint within a reasonable time
Summary of this case from In re Parkway Sales and Leasing, Inc.
recognizing that such a requirement prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice
Summary of this case from Fugitt v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue (In re Fugitt)
noting that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a determination of the merits
Summary of this case from Pillar Panama, S.A. v. Delape
noting "it is the well-established policy of the federal rules that the plaintiff is to be given every opportunity to state a claim," and reversing and remanding a dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim
Summary of this case from Zepeda v. Boerne
observing that a complaint should only be dismissed under Rule 12(b) "after affording every opportunity for the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"
stating that "a court ordinarily should not dismiss the complaint except after affording every opportunity for the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (internal alterations omitted)
Summary of this case from Ins. Safety Consultants LLC v. Nugent
Summary of this case from Bryan v. City of Dall.
Summary of this case from Dyer v. City of Mesquite
stating that “a court ordinarily should not dismiss the complaint except after affording every opportunity for the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” (internal alterations omitted)
Summary of this case from Thawar v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
noting that this requirement prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice
Summary of this case from Cephus v. Tex. Health & Human Servs. Comm'n
Summary of this case from Lakiesha v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon