Reported / Citable
Background
Alejandra Saucedo alleged that El Paso County Sheriff’s deputies responded to an altercation between her and another person, Magdalena. After speaking with both women, Deputy Edgar Raygoza issued Saucedo a citation for assault; a court later dismissed that citation. Saucedo contended the deputies should instead have cited Magdalena.
Saucedo also alleged that, after she filed two internal-affairs complaints, Sergeant Monica Varela prepared two inaccurate criminal reports against her in retaliation. The complaint did not allege that those reports led to a prosecution. Varela was never served, and the deadline for service had expired. El Paso County and Raygoza moved to dismiss; Saucedo did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Leon Schydlower granted the unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Saucedo’s claims against El Paso County and Raygoza. The county-facing allegations—that it failed to train, supervise, and discipline officers and tolerated dishonesty and retaliation—were conclusory and did not plead facts establishing an official policy or custom that was the moving force behind a constitutional violation, as required for municipal liability under Section 1983.
The court held that the allegations against Raygoza—that he interviewed Saucedo and Magdalena and cited only Saucedo—did not plausibly establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right or a cognizable state-law claim. It therefore dismissed the claims against him for failure to state a claim and dismissed the federal claims on qualified-immunity grounds. Discovery was stayed unless Saucedo files a viable amended complaint, and she may seek leave to amend by August 21, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- General assertions of deficient training, supervision, and discipline do not state a Monell claim without supporting facts about a policy or custom.
- Alleging that an officer issued a citation to the wrong participant in an altercation, without more, does not establish a clearly established constitutional violation.
- An unopposed dismissal motion may be granted under the local rules, but the court also found the pleaded claims substantively deficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Section 1983 plaintiffs must plead concrete facts tying a municipality’s policy or custom to the alleged constitutional injury. Conclusory references to institutional failures will not suffice.
It also illustrates the heightened pleading burden when an individual officer invokes qualified immunity: the complaint must plausibly allege conduct violating a clearly established right.