Williams v. Johnson County ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11224 Document: 00516850740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11224
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ August 8, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Ward Sturgis Williams, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Johnson County, Texas; Austin Reed; Thomas Gross,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CV-1612
______________________________
Before King, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Ward Sturgis Williams appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983suit on the grounds that Officer Austin Reed and Sergeant Thomas Gross
were entitled to qualified immunity and that he failed to state a claim against
Johnson County. He argues that Officer Reed and Sergeant Gross are not
entitled to qualified immunity because they did not have reasonable suspicion
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11224 Document: 00516850740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 22-11224
to detain him or to remove him from his vehicle and because they lacked
probable cause to arrest him. Williams argues that he presented valid claims
against Johnson County for violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights when he was held in a suicide cell for 20 hours because he
refused to answer routine booking questions without the assistance of
counsel. Finally, he argues that the district court abused its discretion by
denying him discovery against the defendants because it hampered his ability
to pursue his claims.
For the first time on appeal, Williams argues that the officers violated
his constitutional rights in relation to taking his identification prior to his
arrest and by using excessive force when conducting the pat down search.
Because these claims were not raised in the district court, they will not be
considered. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999). Furthermore, Williams has abandoned his claim that the officers used
excessive force when removing him from his vehicle by failing to raise the
issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
At the time that he approached Williams, Officer Reed knew that
there had been an incident involving violence and a knife and that the man
who wielded the knife was seated in a black car at the scene. See United States
v. Garza, 727 F.3d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 2013); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29-31
(1968). Based on the 911 call and his observations on arriving at the scene,
Officer Reed had reasonable suspicion to believe that Williams may have
committed a crime and, therefore, had reasonable suspicion to detain Wil-
liams at the time he initiated contact with Williams. See United States v.
Thomas, 997 F.3d 603, 609 (5th Cir.2021); United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d
356, 361 (5th Cir. 2008).
2
Case: 22-11224 Document: 00516850740 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 22-11224
The court’s next inquiry is whether Officer Reed’s and Sergeant
Gross’s subsequent actions in ordering Williams out of the car and patting
him down were “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which
justified the interference.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20.
In this case, the officers were aware that William, at one point, had a
knife in his possession; however, it was unknown whether the knife was still
in Williams’s possession. As such, the officers could have reasonably
believed that their safety or the safety of the bystanders was at risk by allowing
Williams to remain in his vehicle unrestrained and possibly armed. See
United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, they did
not violate Williams’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 20,
27.
With respect to the warrantless arrest, the information obtained by the
officers during their investigation provided probable cause that Williams had
committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See United States v.
Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1999); Tex. Penal Code
§ 22.02(a)(2). This included their observations as well as statements taken
from witnesses at the scene. Because the officers’ investigation provided
them with probable cause to arrest Williams, they did not violate his Fourth
Amendment rights. See Garcia, 179 F.3d at 269.
By failing to address his failure to train, failure to protect, and failure
to intervene claims, Williams has abandoned them. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d
at 748. Similarly, Williams’s failure to address the legal grounds underlying
district court’s dismissal of his claims regarding the violation of his Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in his opening or reply briefs has
resulted in the abandonment of those claims. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
Finally, responsive to a court order, Williams’s counsel filed a notice
informing the district court that he did not need to conduct discovery prior
3
Case: 22-11224 Document: 00516850740 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 22-11224
to replying to the officers’ dispositive motion. Consequently, Williams has
not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by staying dis-
covery in this case. Angus Chem. Co. v. Glendora Plantation, Inc., 782 F.3d
175, 179 (5th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
4