Dawes v. City of Dallas

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

MARY DAWES, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1424-X-BK § CITY OF DALLAS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the City of Dallas’s Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 95]. The United States Magistrate Judge delivered her Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on this motion. [Doc. No. 117]. The City did not file objections, so the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error and conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law.1 And the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendation and DENIES the City’s motion to dismiss.2

1 See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). 2 The Court does not abandon its prior opinion in this matter by means of this order. See Doc. No. 87. To succeed on a Monell claim by showing a pattern evincing a municipal policy, the plaintiffs must still show at least twenty-seven similar instances of police misconduct in three years. Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838, 852 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding twenty-seven instances of alleged excessive force in a three-year period insufficient to establish Monell liability at the summary- judgment phase). The Magistrate Judge states that Peterson applies “in the context of a motion for summary judgment,” and the Court acknowledges that—whether or not it may apply at the motion to dismiss phase—it certainly applies at the summary judgment phase. Doc. No. 117 at 5. IT ISSO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2021.

BRANTLE □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE