United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
K. Johnson, United States Magistrate Judge.
before the court is Defendant City of Houston's
(“Defendant City”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc 38). The court has considered the motion, the response,
all other relevant filings, and the applicable law. For the
reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS
Defendant City's motion.
filed this civil rights action alleging a Constitutional
violation as a result of Defendant City's failure to
train its police officers regarding their Fourth Amendment
Factual Background 
March 5, 2015, two HPD officers drove into Plaintiff's
driveway while Plaintiff and her husband Ricky Custer
(“Mr. Custer”) were not home. The officers
walked around the exterior of Plaintiff's home and
disabled the home's security cameras. One of the
officers used his flashlight to break open the front door,
and the officers entered Plaintiff's home. After they exited
the home, leaving the front door open, the officers took the
mail out of Plaintiff's mailbox. The officers then re-entered
their vehicle and parked it down the street from
Custer came home to find his house had been entered and the
security cameras disabled. After Mr. Custer called Plaintiff, she
came home from work and reviewed the footage on their
security cameras. Plaintiff's neighbor also had
footage of the incident captured on his camera.
filed this action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (“Section 1983"), the Texas Torts Claims Act,
and state law claims of negligence and gross
negligence. After reviewing Defendant City's
motion to dismiss, the court dismissed all claims except for
Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim regarding Defendant
City's failure to train its police officers on their
Fourth Amendment responsibilities.
of Plaintiff's case at this stage involves review of both
procedural and substantive legal standards.
judgment is warranted when the evidence reveals that no
genuine dispute exists regarding any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F.3d
574, 581 (5th Cir. 2014). A material fact is a
fact that is identified by applicable substantive law as
critical to the outcome of the suit. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Ameristar Jet
Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc., 271 F.3d 624,
626 (5th Cir. 2001). To be genuine, the dispute
regarding a material fact must be supported by evidence such
that a reasonable jury could resolve the issue in favor of
either party. See Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles,
L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir.
2013)(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
movant must inform the court of the basis for the summary
judgment motion and must point to relevant excerpts from
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of
genuine factual issues. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323; Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131
(5thCir. 1992). If the movant carries its burden,
the nonmovant may not rest on the allegations or denials in
the pleading but must respond with evidence showing a genuine
factual dispute. Stauffer, 741 F.3d at 581 (citing
Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319
(5thCir. 2007)). The court must accept all of the
nonmovant's evidence as true and draw all justifiable
inferences in her favor. Coastal Agric. Supply, Inc. v.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 759 F.3d 498, 505
(5th Cir. 2014)(quoting Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255).