Court Opinion

ID: 9915300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 01:00:35.717327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:24.367416
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50476         Document: 00517021649             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                                                                             FILED
                                      ____________                                      January 4, 2024

                                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                        No. 23-50476                                         Clerk

                                      ____________

   April Johnson, an individual and as next friend of A.N.E.R., a minor;
   A. N.E. R., a minor child, an individual,

                                                                   Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                             versus

   The City of San Antonio; Jessica Osoria, Officer, Badge
   #1422, individually and in her official capacity; Gary Tuli, Officer, Badge
   #517, individually and in his official capacity,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:19-CV-733
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Elrod, and Wilson Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant A’Mynae Roberts was arrested for the alleged
   assault of a police officer during a violent altercation at a Quinceañera in San

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50476         Document: 00517021649               Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/04/2024

                                          No. 23-50476

   Antonio, Texas, on May 20, 2017. 1 She sued several police officers and the
   City of San Antonio (“the City”) for falsely arresting her and using excessive
   force to make the arrest. Specifically, Roberts alleged that the City violated
   42 U.S.C. § 1983 by negligently hiring, retaining, supervising, and training its
   officers. Roberts also brought various state law and § 1983 claims against
   three individual officers: Officers Tuli, Osoria, and Groce. 2
           All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied
   Roberts’s motion for summary judgment, granted the City’s cross-motion
   for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Officer Tuli’s
   and Officers Groce and Osoria’s cross-motions for summary judgment. The
   district court then dismissed the state-law claims against all parties as well as
   the § 1983 claims against Officer Groce and the City. Both Roberts and the
   individual officers appealed. On appeal, we held that we lacked jurisdiction
   to consider Roberts’s appeal of the district court’s grant of summary
   judgment in favor of the City. Additionally, we reversed the district court’s
   denial of qualified immunity for the individual officers based on video and
   audio footage, explicitly finding that the officers did not violate Roberts’s
   constitutional rights. On remand, judgment of dismissal was entered on May

           _____________________
           1
             In a previous appeal Roberts’s attorney confirmed that Roberts is the only plaintiff
   in the action. Johnson v. City of San Antonio, No. 22-50196, 2023 WL 3019686, at *1 n.2
   (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2023). The facts are thoroughly recounted in our previous opinion.
           2
              Roberts brought claims for excessive force, assault and battery, and unlawful
   arrest and false imprisonment, all under § 1983; and state-law claims of intentional
   infliction of emotional distress and defamation against Officer Tuli. Roberts brought claims
   for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment under § 1983 and state-law claims of intentional
   infliction of emotional distress and defamation against Officers Groce and Osoria. Roberts
   brought claims for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, intentional infliction of
   emotional distress, as well as negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention against
   the City.

                                                 2
Case: 23-50476      Document: 00517021649           Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/04/2024

                                     No. 23-50476

   24, 2023. Roberts now appeals only the dismissal of her claims against the
   City. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
          Roberts first argues that the district court erred in dismissing her §
   1983 claims against the City, as there are genuine disputes of material fact.
   Roberts’s arguments lack merit. A municipality’s liability under § 1983 is
   analyzed under the framework articulated in Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Svcs., 436
   U.S. 658 (1978). The Monell framework requires the plaintiff to “show that
   (1) an official policy (2) promulgated by the municipal policymaker (3) was
   the moving force behind the violation of a constitutional right” to succeed on
   a § 1983 claim against a municipality. Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d
   838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567,
   578 (5th Cir. 2001)). “As is well established, every Monell claim requires ‘an
   underlying constitutional violation.’” Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cty., 860 F.3d
   803, 808 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Kitchen v. Dall. Cty., 759 F.3d 468, 476 (5th
   Cir. 2014) (abrogated on other grounds)). A previous panel of our Court
   reviewed the record and determined that Roberts suffered no constitutional
   harm. Johnson v. City of San Antonio, No. 22-50196, 2023 WL 3019686 (5th
   Cir. Apr. 20, 2023). This is dispositive. “It is a well-settled Fifth Circuit rule
   of orderliness that one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s
   decision, absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a statutory
   amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.” Jacobs v. Nat’l
   Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008). Our previous ruling
   forecloses Roberts’s § 1983 claim against the City.
          Additionally, Roberts argues that the district court erred in dismissing
   her state law claims against the City. Roberts’s state law claims against the
   City include negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, as well as
   intentional infliction of emotional distress. The City argues that the state law
   claims are barred by governmental immunity. The district court found that
   “[the City] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all state law claims

                                           3
Case: 23-50476       Document: 00517021649           Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/04/2024

                                      No. 23-50476

   for intentional torts” because the Texas Tort Claims Act “provides that
   immunity is not waived for claims of assault and battery, and intentional
   infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort . . .” Johnson v. City of
   San Antonio, No. 5:19-CV-733, 2022 WL 20209377, at *16 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
   20, 2023) (citations omitted). As the district court found, the Texas Civil
   Practice & Remedies Code explicitly provides in § 101.021(2) that local
   governments do not waive their immunity for conduct “arising out of . . . any
   . . . intentional tort.” Because intentional infliction of emotional distress is an
   intentional tort, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing this
   claim.
            Further, the district court correctly found that the claim against the
   City for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention was also barred
   by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Id. at *16. The Texas Supreme Court has held
   that “a cause of action for negligent supervision or training must satisfy the
   TTCA’s use of tangible property requirement.” Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice-
   Cmty. Justice Assistance Div. v. Campos, 384 S.W.3d 810, 815 (Tex. 2012).
   Here, Roberts fails to allege that any physical property was used in causing
   her injuries. Therefore, the district court did not err when it dismissed her
   state law claim against the City. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the
   district court’s judgment.

                                           4