Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00-CV-2728-G.
October 31, 2001.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the defendant Kay McDaniel ("McDaniel") to dismiss the plaintiff's due process claim against her for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff Dennis Williams ("Williams") commenced this case on December 18, 2000 against John Does 1 and 2, two agents of the North East Drug Task Force, alleging that (1) the agents illegally searched and seized his vehicle and $4,300 in cash and (2) wrongfully arrested him. Plaintiff's Original Complaint ("Complaint") at 4; Answers to Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire ("Magistrate Questionnaire") at 1-2. Williams is seeking $125,000 in actual damages, as well as punitive damages and court costs. Complaint at 4. On August 9, 2001, Williams sought leave to add McDaniel as a defendant in this case on the grounds that McDaniel violated his due process rights by not providing him with the names of the arresting officers and by refusing to give him a copy of the docket sheet from his criminal case. Motion to Amend and to Add Additional Defendant ("Motion to Amend") at 1. Nearly three weeks later, on August 27, 2001, Williams petitioned the court for an order requiring McDaniel to provide Williams with the identities of the John Doe defendants in this action. Motion for Order at 1. On August 30, 2001, Magistrate Judge Boyle entered an order granting Williams' request to add McDaniel as a defendant but denying his motion to compel discovery. Order of August 30, 2001 at 1.
McDaniel filed a motion to dismiss Williams' claims on September 24, 2001. Defendant Kay McDaniel's Motion to Dismiss and Brief ("Motion to Dismiss") at 1. In the motion, McDaniel contends that Williams has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted and that she is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Motion to Dismiss at 5-11. Williams has not filed a responsive pleading to McDaniel's motion to dismiss. On October 17, 2001, this court granted Williams' request for leave of court to post the true name of John Doe I.
II. ANALYSIS A. Standard for Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Before dismissal is granted, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Advertising and Sales System, Inc., 30 F.3d 627, 629 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); Norman v. Apache Corporation, 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 1991).
B. Failure to State a Claim
To establish a due process violation, Williams must allege that he was deprived of some property or liberty interest. See U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ."); Baldwin v. Daniels, 250 F.3d 943, 946 (5th Cir. 2001) ("To bring a procedural due process claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must first identify a protected life, liberty or property interest and then prove that governmental action resulted in a deprivation of that interest."). Here, Williams contends that:
1. The Rockwall District Clerk (Kay McDaniel) has refused to submit the names of the two police named in this case and has refused to give a docket sheet to Dennis Williams that would have them named as witnesses.
2. By refusing to submit their names the clerk is using authority to deny due process as this court can not serve process on the two defendants without their names and addresses.
3. Dennis Williams has requested a docket sheet and these witnesses names several times and he gets no response from the clerk of Rockwall District Clerk's Office.
Wherefore the plaintiff Dennis Williams asks this court to amend this case and add Kay McDaniel as a defendant so that process can be served and a court order or interrogatories can be served on the clerk to submit the two police officers names and addresses.
By amending and adding kay McDaniel as a defendant the plaintiff asks this courts to access [sic] damages as this court sees fit for the negligence of Rockwall District Court Clerk kay McDaniel for using authority to deny due process and for hindering this case by withholding evidence.
Motion to Amend at 1-2.
At the outset, the court agrees with McDaniel that Williams' due process claim against her must be predicated upon some established property interest because no liberty interest is at stake: Williams was not convicted of the crimes that the John Doe defendants arrested him for, and he is not seeking the information from the clerk's office as a means to attack any criminal conviction. Motion to Dismiss at 6; see also Magistrate Questionnaire at 7-9.
In this case, Williams fails to assert a viable due process claim because he has not alleged a cognizable property interest in requiring McDaniel to furnish him with the names and addresses of the officers who arrested him. As the Fifth Circuit observed, "[t]he Constitution does not create property interests" and a party must "therefore look to [state] law for the creation of a property interest that will support [a] claim to due process rights." Garcia v. Reeves County, Texas, 32 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)); see also Hidden Oaks Limited v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1046 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that state law defines the relevant property interest and that "the hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except for cause.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Texas statutory law does not recognize any relevant property interest in the information Williams is seeking from the district clerk of Rockwall County. See TEX. GOVT. CODE § 51-303 (Vernon 1998). Moreover, Williams has not cited, and the court has been unable to find, any case law supporting a claim of property interest in the information Williams seeks. Notably, Williams' complaint is devoid of any allegation that McDaniel prevented him access to, or review of, any public court records. See Motion to Amend at 1-2. Rather, Williams merely alleges that McDaniel "refused to submit the names of the two police named in this case and has refused to give a docket sheet to Dennis Williams that would have them named as witnesses." Id. at 1. Nowhere in his complaint does Williams contend that he paid, or offered to pay, any of the applicable fees for his request as required by Texas law. See TEX. GOVT. CODE § 51-318 (Vernon 1998) (detailing various fees due the district clerk when service is performed or requested). Accordingly, Williams' due process claim against McDaniel is dismissed for failure to state a claim. F.R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
Section 51-303 of the Government Code, in pertinent part, provides:
(a) The clerk of a district court has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in the clerk's office.
(b) The clerk of a district court shall:
(1) record the acts and proceedings of the court;
(2) enter all judgments of the court under the direction of the judge; and
(3) record all executions issued and the returns on the executions.
(c) The district court shall keep an index of the parties to all suits filed in the court. . . .
TEX. GOVT. CODE § 51-303 (Vernon 1998).
Given this outcome, the court will not address McDaniel's argument that dismissal is also appropriate on the basis of qualified immunity. Motion to Dismiss at 8-11.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, McDaniel's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), F.R. CIV. P., is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered that Williams take nothing from McDaniel on his claims in this case.