Wray v. Home Depot USA ( 2021 )

Case: 21-10374 Document: 00516014814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 15, 2021
No. 21-10374
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Norma Wray,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Home Depot USA, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CV-2785
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Norma Wray sued her former employer, Home Depot USA, Inc., for
employment discrimination and false imprisonment. She now appeals the
district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her false imprisonment claims 1 for
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
1
Wray appears to allege two claims related to false imprisonment: (1) false
imprisonment by Home Depot regarding an incident related to an investigation for theft;
Case: 21-10374 Document: 00516014814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2021
No. 21-10374
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state a
claim that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotation omitted). That is, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although “a court must accept as
true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,” the same standard does
not apply to legal conclusions. Id.Under Texas law, “[t]he essential elements of false imprisonment are:
(1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002)
(quotation omitted). Relevant here, Wray fails to allege sufficient facts to
support her false imprisonment claims; indeed, nothing in Wray’s operative
complaint demonstrates that she was willfully detained without authority of
law. Instead, her argument largely rests on conclusory allegations, rather
than actual facts, that are insufficient to establish a plausible claim for relief.
To the extent that Wray does plead relevant factual allegations, they “stop[]
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation omitted).
As noted by the district court, Wray had several opportunities to plead
sufficient facts to state a claim for false imprisonment but failed to do so.
Under the circumstances, the district court acted within its discretion to
dismiss Wray’s claims with prejudice. United States ex rel. Willard v.
Humana Health Plan of Tex. Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003)
and (2) the instigation of false imprisonment by Home Depot for “misle[a]d[ing]” and
“direct[ing]” police officers to arrest her.
2
Case: 21-10374 Document: 00516014814 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2021
No. 21-10374
(acknowledging that “leave to amend properly may be denied when the party
seeking leave has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed and when amendment would be futile”).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
3