Court Opinion

ID: 9890957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 00:00:24.8219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:15.096385
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30050          Document: 00516932875               Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                        ____________                                     Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                         No. 23-30050                           October 16, 2023
                                       Summary Calendar
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                       ____________                                    Clerk

   Iain Watt,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                               versus

   New Orleans City,

                                                 Defendant—Appellee.
                       ______________________________

                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 2:22-CV-3107
                       ______________________________

   Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          This is a Monell 1 action brought by Officer Iain Watt of the New
   Orleans Police Department (NOPD) against the City of New Orleans to
   recover for injuries he allegedly sustained when a fellow police officer,
   Sergeant Charles Hoffacker, attacked him for not agreeing to assist him in
   removing trash from the police station. The district court granted the City’s
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
              Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Case: 23-30050       Document: 00516932875            Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                       No. 23-30050

   Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds that Watt’s allegations were
   insufficient to state a Monell claim against the City. We AFFIRM.
          In his complaint, Watt alleged that his superior officer, Sergeant Jamie
   Roach, instructed him to transport her to Harrah’s Casino to perform her
   payroll duties. At the same time, another sergeant, Sergeant Hoffacker,
   requested Watt’s assistance in removing trash from the police station. Watt
   explained to Hoffacker that he was assigned to Roach and was about to drive
   her to Harrah’s. Hoffacker was bothered by Watt’s refusal to comply with
   his order and “levied loud verbal complaints” against Watt.
          Watt drove Roach to Harrah’s Casino. Hoffacker then telephoned
   Watt to ask where he was. After informing Hoffacker that he was at
   Harrah’s, Hoffacker arrived shortly thereafter, approached the vehicle
   Roach and Watt were sitting in, and “asked [Watt] to step out of the
   vehicle.” Hoffacker then “removed his radio and gun from his body and
   threw them into the police [vehicle].” After Watt exited the vehicle,
   Hoffacker shoved him in his chest, at which point Watt turned around to the
   vehicle and asked Roach, “Sarge, you seeing this?” When Watt turned back
   around, Hoffacker struck Watt in the face with a closed fist, causing Watt to
   fall to the pavement. Watt momentarily lost consciousness. Roach called for
   backup, and other officers from the Eighth District restrained Hoffacker, who
   was taken into custody. Watt was transferred to the hospital.
          Watt subsequently filed suit against Hoffacker 2 and the City of New
   Orleans, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. 3 Watt’s

          _____________________
          2
             Watt asserted state-law claims against Hoffacker for assault, battery, and
   intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law.
          3
            After determining that Watt failed to state a Monell claim, the district court
   declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Watt’s state-law claims against

                                             2
Case: 23-30050         Document: 00516932875               Page: 3       Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                           No. 23-30050

   complaint noted that sometime before this incident, Hoffacker had been
   placed on administrative desk duty without authority to operate a police
   vehicle or carry a firearm. His § 1983 claims were asserted against the City
   for municipal liability under Monell for “unconstitutional policies, customs,
   usages, practices, and procedures” and “excessive and unreasonable force.”
           The district court granted the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
   for failure to state a claim based on the second element of a viable Monell
   claim, deliberate indifference. 4 Specifically, it determined that Watt failed to
   sufficiently plead facts indicating the City was “deliberately indifferent to the
   inadequacy of its policies” or facts indicating the City was deliberately
   indifferent because it “had notice of a pattern of similar use of ‘unlawful and
   unreasonable force’ by Hoffacker.”
           On appeal, Watt asserts that because Hoffacker was “on
   administrative desk duty” at the time of the incident, “it appears Defendant
   City was aware of potential issues with [his] mental faculties.” Watt points
   out that “Hoffacker was instructed not to carry a firearm” and “to remain at
   the [station].” Watt contends that Hoffacker was not adequately supervised
   on the day of the incident and that because of his status on administrative
   desk duty, the City “had ample notice” that Hoffacker would be a “danger
   to himself and the public at large.” Watt submits that “through Discovery,

           _____________________
   Hoffacker and the City and dismissed those without prejudice. On appeal, Watt does not
   challenge the dismissal of his state-law claims.
           4
              See Ratliff v. Aransas Cnty., Tex., 948 F.3d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2020) (setting forth
   three elements applicable to a Monell claim based on a failure to properly hire, train,
   supervise, or discipline: “(1) that the municipality’s training procedures were inadequate,
   (2) that the municipality was deliberately indifferent in adopting its training policy, and
   (3) that the inadequate training policy directly caused the violations in question” (quoting
   Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, 614 F.3d 161, 170 (5th Cir. 2010)).

                                                 3
Case: 23-30050          Document: 00516932875               Page: 4      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                           No. 23-30050

   he will be able to show a pattern of behavior on the part of Defendant
   Hoffacker.”
          Watt misunderstands what is required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
   motion as to his Monell claim. Watt’s pleadings had to “contain sufficient
   factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
   its face.” 5 The facts set forth in Watt’s complaint do not state a plausible
   Monell claim, but only a speculative one. He provides no specific examples
   of past similar conduct by Hoffacker. Moreover, as the district court noted,
   the fact that Hoffacker was assigned to administrative desk duty and
   prohibited from driving a police vehicle or carrying a weapon demonstrates
   that the City was not deliberately indifferent to whatever infraction Hoffacker
   previously committed, but instead took disciplinary action and reprimanded
   him.
          Watt blames his failure to plead a plausible claim on the district
   court’s alleged refusal to allow him an opportunity to conduct discovery and
   amend his complaint. But, as the Supreme Court has explained, Watt was
   required to allege facts beyond “mere possibility.” 6 And, we cannot allow
   Watt “to embark on an unjustified fishing expedition against the . . . City to
   discover facts that might have justified proceeding beyond the Rule 12(b)(6)
   state if they had been alleged at the outset.” 7
          Finally, although noted by the district court but not stated as a basis
   for its dismissal, Watt’s Monell claim also fails because there was no
          _____________________
          5
              Id. at 284-85 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
          6
              Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557-58 (2007).
          7
              Clark v. Thompson, 850 F. App’x 203, 213 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam)
   (unpublished). Unpublished opinions issued in or after 1996 are “not controlling
   precedent” except in limited circumstances, but they “may be persuasive authority.”
   Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).

                                                  4
Case: 23-30050        Document: 00516932875             Page: 5      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                         No. 23-30050

   underlying constitutional violation. 8 Hoffacker was not “acting under color
   of law” when he attacked Watt. 9 As noted by the district court, Hoffacker
   was acting pursuant to his own private aim of retribution against Watt for
   declining to assist him on the day of the incident. Hoffacker was not acting
   as a law enforcement officer—he even threw his gun and radio into the police
   vehicle before attacking Watt. Because Hoffacker was not acting “under
   color of law,” Watt has no § 1983 claim and consequently no Monell claim.
           The district court correctly granted the City’s 12(b)(6) motion. We
   AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

           _____________________
           8
            See Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting
   that “every Monell claim requires an underlying constitutional violation” (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted)).
           9
            See Townsend v. Moya, 291 F.3d 859, 860 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prison
   guard did not act under color of law when he stabbed an inmate during a game of horseplay
   unrelated to the guard’s official duties).

                                               5