Court Opinion

ID: 9396261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 00:00:23.580624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.720798
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50888         Document: 00516757018             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50888
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 19, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Amanda Wood,                                                                        Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bexar County, Texas; Deputy J. Gereb,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:21-CV-895
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Amanda Wood appeals the dismissal of her claims that followed from
   a traffic stop in Bexar County. Because the district court erred in its qualified
   immunity analysis, we REVERSE and REMAND.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50888       Document: 00516757018           Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                      No. 22-50888

                                            I
          Four years ago, Amanda Wood was pulled over by Bexar County
   sheriff’s deputy Joe Gereb. 1 Gereb, apparently adamant that Wood was
   drunk, ordered Wood out of her car for a field sobriety test. Wood—a
   completely sober teetotaler—politely refused. So, Gereb called in backup,
   arrested Wood, took her cellphone (which was recording the encounter), and
   towed her car. Then, to effect a blood draw, Gereb “shoved[] and struck”
   Wood and “twisted and contorted [her] limbs, causing great pain.”
          Eventually, Wood was charged with driving while intoxicated. But,
   that charge was dropped by the district attorney for “insufficient evidence.”
   According to Wood, she never exhibited any sign of intoxication, either in
   her driving or her demeanor. She also was never given a basis for the stop and
   never received a citation. Gereb—according to Wood’s complaint—only
   arrested her in retaliation for refusing to comply with his demands and
   recording the stop. So, Wood filed suit against Gereb and Bexar County,
   raising various federal and state law claims, including First and Fourth
   Amendment violations.
          The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
   recommendation, granted Gereb and Bexar County’s motion to dismiss. The
   magistrate judge reasoned that—per Gereb’s “blood-draw warrant
   affidavit” attached to the motion to dismiss—there was probable cause to
   pull Wood over. That probable cause finding was fatal to nearly all of Wood’s
   claims. Now, Wood appeals the dismissal of her claims. She argues that,
   among other things, the magistrate judge—in violation of the Rule 12(b)(6)

          _____________________
          1
          Because her claims were dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we take the facts
   from Wood’s complaint.

                                                2
Case: 22-50888        Document: 00516757018          Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                      No. 22-50888

   framework—“improperly accepted” and relied upon Gereb’s probable
   cause affidavit.
                                           II
          We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss based on qualified
   immunity. Williams-Boldware v. Denton Cnty., 741 F.3d 635, 643 (5th Cir.
   2014). Generally speaking, we don’t “require detailed factual allegations” in
   a plaintiff’s complaint, but it “must contain sufficient facts to allow[] the
   court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
   misconduct alleged.” Gomez v. Galman, 18 F.4th 769, 775 (5th Cir. 2021) (per
   curiam) (citation and quotations omitted). Importantly, at the motion to
   dismiss stage, we don’t “consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s versions
   of the facts.” Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009)
   (citation and quotations omitted). Instead, we “accept[] all well-pleaded
   facts as true and draw[] all inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” T.O. v. Fort
   Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2021).
          To find probable cause, the magistrate judge relied entirely on “the
   blood-draw warrant affidavit submitted by Gereb” which the defendants
   “attach[ed]” to their motion to dismiss. That was error. When ruling on a
   motion to dismiss, a court may consider “outside” evidence—or facts
   beyond those complained of or judicially noticed—attached to a motion to
   dismiss when such documents are “referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint”
   and “central” to the plaintiff’s claims.2 Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet,
   Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). But, even when looking to such
   documents, a court is still bound to draw all inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
   Fort Bend, 2 F.4th at 413. Here, the magistrate judge failed to do so.

          _____________________
          2
           We take no stance on whether—through judicial notice or attachment of the
   document—it was appropriate to address the affidavit here.

                                                3
Case: 22-50888      Document: 00516757018            Page: 4    Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                      No. 22-50888

          Turning to Wood’s facts—as the court was required to do—it’s clear
   that her complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, [when] accepted as
   true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” George v. SI Grp.,
   Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations and quotations omitted). She
   alleges that Gereb pulled her over “without any articulable basis,” falsely
   “accus[ed]” her of being drunk, tried to “coerce” her into admitting guilt,
   “rummaged” through her car and person without reason, “seized her
   cellular phone” for recording the stop, and “shoved and struck” her when
   she didn’t comply. Gereb then “lied in an [a]ffidavit” to get a blood draw and
   knowingly filed “false criminal charges” against Wood. Those facts “must
   be taken as true” at this stage of the case. George, 36 F.4th at 619. So, the
   court’s probable cause determination—which was based on Gereb’s affidavit
   and led to the dismissal of nearly all of Wood’s claims—was erroneous. 3 We
   REVERSE and REMAND for consideration of Wood’s claims consistent
   with this opinion.

          _____________________
          3
             Wood doesn’t contest the dismissal of her state law claims of malicious
   prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

                                               4