Court Opinion

ID: 9554450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 00:00:30.691128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:58.371132
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11224         Document: 00516850740             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11224
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                 August 8, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Ward Sturgis Williams,                                                              Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Johnson County, Texas; Austin Reed; Thomas Gross,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:21-CV-1612
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ward Sturgis Williams appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   suit on the grounds that Officer Austin Reed and Sergeant Thomas Gross
   were entitled to qualified immunity and that he failed to state a claim against
   Johnson County. He argues that Officer Reed and Sergeant Gross are not
   entitled to qualified immunity because they did not have reasonable suspicion

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11224       Document: 00516850740           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                      No. 22-11224

   to detain him or to remove him from his vehicle and because they lacked
   probable cause to arrest him. Williams argues that he presented valid claims
   against Johnson County for violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
   Amendment rights when he was held in a suicide cell for 20 hours because he
   refused to answer routine booking questions without the assistance of
   counsel. Finally, he argues that the district court abused its discretion by
   denying him discovery against the defendants because it hampered his ability
   to pursue his claims.
            For the first time on appeal, Williams argues that the officers violated
   his constitutional rights in relation to taking his identification prior to his
   arrest and by using excessive force when conducting the pat down search.
   Because these claims were not raised in the district court, they will not be
   considered. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
   1999). Furthermore, Williams has abandoned his claim that the officers used
   excessive force when removing him from his vehicle by failing to raise the
   issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987).
            At the time that he approached Williams, Officer Reed knew that
   there had been an incident involving violence and a knife and that the man
   who wielded the knife was seated in a black car at the scene. See United States
   v. Garza, 727 F.3d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 2013); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29-31
   (1968). Based on the 911 call and his observations on arriving at the scene,
   Officer Reed had reasonable suspicion to believe that Williams may have
   committed a crime and, therefore, had reasonable suspicion to detain Wil-
   liams at the time he initiated contact with Williams. See United States v.
   Thomas, 997 F.3d 603, 609 (5th Cir.2021); United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d
   356, 361 (5th Cir. 2008).

                                           2
Case: 22-11224      Document: 00516850740           Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 22-11224

          The court’s next inquiry is whether Officer Reed’s and Sergeant
   Gross’s subsequent actions in ordering Williams out of the car and patting
   him down were “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which
   justified the interference.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20.
          In this case, the officers were aware that William, at one point, had a
   knife in his possession; however, it was unknown whether the knife was still
   in Williams’s possession. As such, the officers could have reasonably
   believed that their safety or the safety of the bystanders was at risk by allowing
   Williams to remain in his vehicle unrestrained and possibly armed. See
   United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, they did
   not violate Williams’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 20,
   27.
          With respect to the warrantless arrest, the information obtained by the
   officers during their investigation provided probable cause that Williams had
   committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See United States v.
   Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1999); Tex. Penal Code
   § 22.02(a)(2). This included their observations as well as statements taken
   from witnesses at the scene. Because the officers’ investigation provided
   them with probable cause to arrest Williams, they did not violate his Fourth
   Amendment rights. See Garcia, 179 F.3d at 269.
          By failing to address his failure to train, failure to protect, and failure
   to intervene claims, Williams has abandoned them. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d
   at 748. Similarly, Williams’s failure to address the legal grounds underlying
   district court’s dismissal of his claims regarding the violation of his Fifth,
   Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in his opening or reply briefs has
   resulted in the abandonment of those claims. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
          Finally, responsive to a court order, Williams’s counsel filed a notice
   informing the district court that he did not need to conduct discovery prior

                                           3
Case: 22-11224      Document: 00516850740          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 22-11224

   to replying to the officers’ dispositive motion. Consequently, Williams has
   not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by staying dis-
   covery in this case. Angus Chem. Co. v. Glendora Plantation, Inc., 782 F.3d
   175, 179 (5th Cir. 2015).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4