Reported / Citable
Background
Roberto Salinas, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued San Diego, Texas Police Chief Ben Gomez and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Texas tort law. Salinas alleged that, after his arrest, Gomez grabbed his genitalia, placed a hand between his buttocks, and made an explicit comment while conducting a search at the Duval County Jail. Salinas also alleged that another officer placed him in a suicide-restraint jacket, causing severe emotional distress and suicidal thoughts.
Salinas asserted assault and battery, false imprisonment, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, along with § 1983 claims based on alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, sexual assault, and restraint. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against the City and Gomez in his official capacity, as well as the state-law claims against Gomez individually. Salinas separately sought leave to add allegations concerning Gomez’s alleged termination, clarify earlier allegations, add the Duval County Sheriff’s Department, and expand his municipal-liability theory.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton recommended granting the partial motion to dismiss. The recommendation concluded that governmental immunity barred the intentional-tort claims against the City and Gomez in his official capacity because the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims arising from assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other intentional torts. It further concluded that the Act’s election-of-remedies provision required dismissal of the same state-law claims against Gomez individually because Salinas sued both Gomez and the City concerning the same subject matter.
The magistrate judge also recommended dismissing the § 1983 claims against the City and Gomez in his official capacity. Salinas had not plausibly alleged a written municipal policy or a sufficiently widespread custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations; his allegations were conclusory and relied principally on one factually dissimilar prior incident. Because an official-capacity claim against Gomez was effectively a claim against the City, it failed for the same reason. The recommendation emphasized that Gomez’s individual-capacity § 1983 claims were not challenged by the motion and remained pending.
Finally, the magistrate judge recommended denying both motions to amend as futile. Salinas lacked standing to assert an employment-retaliation claim based on Gomez’s alleged firing, and the proposed factual clarifications and additional municipal-custom allegations did not cure the pleading deficiencies. The attempt to add the Duval County Sheriff’s Department likewise rested on conclusory allegations rather than specific prior incidents establishing a widespread custom.
Key Takeaways
- Texas governmental immunity barred the intentional-tort claims against the City and against Gomez in his official capacity.
- By suing both the City and Gomez over the same state-law claims, Salinas triggered the Texas Tort Claims Act’s election-of-remedies provision requiring dismissal of the employee.
- The proposed amendments did not supply specific facts showing a widespread municipal custom, while the individual-capacity § 1983 claims against Gomez remained pending.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the distinct barriers facing claims against Texas municipalities and their employees: governmental immunity can foreclose state intentional-tort claims, while federal municipal liability requires facts connecting a constitutional injury to an official policy or a persistent, widespread practice. A bare assertion of municipal sanction, coupled with a single dissimilar incident, does not satisfy that standard.
It also underscores the procedural consequences of naming both a governmental unit and its employee on Texas tort claims. This document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final district-court judgment, and the parties were given 14 days to object.