Court Opinion

ID: 9387685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 18:00:37.708655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.910561
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40653        Document: 00516715265             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/18/2023

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-40653                               April 18, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                     Clerk

   Beri Dave,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Claudine O’Carroll, Chief of Police - SPI Police Department; City
   of South Padre Island, City Government; Jaime Rodriguez,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:20-CV-209
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Beri Dave appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claims against the City
   of South Padre Island and its various officials. We AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40653        Document: 00516715265             Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                         No. 22-40653

                                               I
           Beri Dave is a First Amendment auditor. That means he often seeks
   out—and records—interactions with police across the country. He then
   uploads those videos to a public YouTube channel.
           Back in 2020, Dave was filming one such video in South Padre Island,
   Texas. 1 Hoping to “record the public actions of on-duty police officers,” he
   wandered down an alley behind the South Padre Island Police Department
   office. As he approached the building, two officers repeatedly asked if he
   needed help. Dave waited several moments before directing the officers to
   “go back to work” since that was “what [he] pays [them] to do.”
           Dave was then approached by Officer David Laird, who explained that
   Dave was trespassing. Dave, incredulous that he could be trespassing on
   “public property that [he] pay[s] for,” asked for Laird’s name and badge
   number. In response, Laird grabbed Dave’s phone from his hand, placed it
   on the ground, and had another officer cuff him. Laird then demanded Dave
   identify himself. Dave refused.
           SPIPD officers patted Dave for weapons as Laird spoke with another
   officer on the scene. After the two concluded that Dave was merely
   recording, had no weapons, and should be let go, Laird walked Dave a few
   feet away and removed his cuffs. Dave immediately returned to filming,
   letting everyone know that they’d be named in his impending lawsuit. Most
   officers then left the scene.
           A short while later, Laird returned with Detective Jamie Rodriguez.
   The pair had a tense conversation—Dave insisted that the department
           _____________________
           1
             The following description of events is pulled from Dave’s two pleadings, as well
   as the several videos (from his phone and from officer bodycams) that he submitted with
   his complaints.

                                                   2
Case: 22-40653        Document: 00516715265             Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                         No. 22-40653

   provide Laird’s name and badge number so he could press charges, while
   Rodriguez asked Dave over and over to identify himself. During the
   exchange, Dave never stopped recording. With the two at an impasse, Dave
   walked off the property, all the while demanding to see a supervisor so he
   could file a complaint against Laird.
           True to his word, Dave later filed suit. He alleged that the City,
   Officer Laird, Detective Rodriguez, and the SPIPD Chief of Police, Claudine
   O’Carroll, violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
   Amendment rights. The district court eventually dismissed all claims in two
   separate orders. First, following a report and recommendation from a
   magistrate judge, it dismissed all claims against Officer Laird and any claims
   against O’Carroll and the City of South Padre Island related to Laird’s
   conduct. 2 Several months later, again on the recommendation of the
   magistrate judge, the court dismissed all claims against Detective Rodriguez
   and any claims against O’Carroll and the City of South Padre related to
   Rodriguez’s conduct. The court found first that because Rodriguez had died
   during the litigation and had never been properly served, he could not be sued
   in his individual capacity. It noted in the alternative, however, that should
   Dave’s claims proceed against Rodriguez’s estate, Dave nevertheless failed
   to show that Rodriguez violated any of his federal rights. It next found that
   Dave’s claims against Rodriguez in his official capacity were, in essence,
   claims against South Padre Island, and that Dave failed to identify a policy or
   custom that was the driving force behind any alleged deprivation of rights.
   Because Dave’s claims against O’Carroll and South Padre Island were

           _____________________
           2
            It appeared to do so on the merits, notwithstanding the fact that Laird was never
   properly served.

                                                   3
Case: 22-40653      Document: 00516715265          Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                    No. 22-40653

   derived from his claims against Rodriguez, the court dismissed all three
   defendants.
          Dave now appeals only the second order focused on Detective
   Rodriguez.
                                          II
          We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Thurman v. Med.
   Transp. Mgmt., Inc., 982 F.3d 953, 955 (5th Cir. 2020). “To survive a motion
   to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter which, when
   taken as true, states ‘a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Innova
   Hosp. San Antonio, L.P. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 892 F.3d 719,
   726 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
   (2007)). The pleadings and other filings of pro se litigants are construed
   liberally. Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019). Our
   review is limited to the contents of the pleadings, any attachments to them,
   and any documents attached to a motion to dismiss that are referred to in the
   pleadings and that are central to the claims made. Collins v. Morgan Stanley
   Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000). If the allegations
   contradict any pleading exhibit, the exhibit controls. U.S. ex rel. Riley v. St.
   Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2004).
          To start, we agree with the district court that Dave’s claims against
   Rodriguez cannot survive because Rodriguez died before he was properly
   served. That lack of service (which, before he died, Rodriguez properly
   contested in a Rule 12(b)(5) motion), means the court never held personal
   jurisdiction over him. See Omni Cap. Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97,
   104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
   defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be
   satisfied.”); Miss. Publ’g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1946)
   (“[S]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court . . . asserts

                                               4
Case: 22-40653      Document: 00516715265           Page: 5     Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                     No. 22-40653

   jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”). Because Rodriguez was
   never served (and nor was any derivative party against which Dave could
   proceed), the claims against him were properly dismissed.
          We also agree with the district court’s resolution of Dave’s claims
   against O’Carroll. Dave’s claims against her are premised on the actions of
   Rodriguez. But supervisors cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for
   the conduct of others, and so, Dave’s claims against O’Carroll must fail. See
   Est. of Davis ex rel. McCully v. City of N. Richland Hills, 406 F.3d 375, 381 (5th
   Cir. 2005).
          And finally, we agree with the district court that Dave’s claims against
   the City cannot proceed. To succeed against the City, Dave must satisfy the
   classic Monell test. See Webb v. Town of Saint Joseph, 925 F.3d 209, 214 (5th
   Cir. 2019); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001)
   (“[T]he unconstitutional conduct must be directly attributable to the
   municipality through some sort of official action or imprimatur.”). Dave can
   demonstrate such an official action by showing either “written policy
   statements, ordinances, or regulations[, or] . . . a widespread practice that is
   so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents
   municipal policy[,]” or that the alleged unconstitutional action was done at
   the direction of an official or entity possessing “final policymaking
   authority.” Webb, 925 F.3d at 214–15 (cleaned up). Dave shows none of these
   things. He does not identify any official policy or regulation, nor any
   widespread practice, nor the order of any final policymaker, that constituted
   the moving force behind his alleged constitutional violation. Therefore, his
   claims against the City must also be dismissed.
                                          III
          The district court is AFFIRMED.

                                                5