# Joyce v. Young County Sheriff's Office

> District Court, N.D. Texas · August 1, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10672285

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** August 1, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10672285

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

SHAWN M. JOYCE, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § NO. 4:23-CV-620-O
§
YOUNG COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, §
§
Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Came on for consideration the motions of Defendants Alex Maiden and Jordan Roebuck
for summary judgment.1 The Court, having considered the motions, the response of Plaintiff,
Shawn M. Joyce,2 the reply, the record, and applicable authorities concludes that the motions must
be GRANTED.
After the summary judgment motions had been fully briefed, Plaintiff filed what appears
to be a sur-reply and docketed it as a counter motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 50. Plaintiff
did not seek leave to file a sur-reply. Nor would a cross-motion for summary judgment be timely.
I. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by pulling him over
“for a traffic violation which did not happen.” ECF No. 8 at 5.3 He alleges that he was detained

1 The motions are virtually the same. For ease of reference, the Court will refer to Defendant Maiden’s motion, ECF
No. 32.
2 Plaintiff has filed a number of documents containing the same information, ECF Nos. 40–48, although the affidavits
as to each Defendant are different. ECF Nos. 44 & 47.
3 The page reference is to “Page 5 of 9” reflected at the top right portion of the document on the Court’s electronic
filing system and is used because a handwritten page is included in the typewritten form used by Plaintiff.

1
for almost an hour even though Defendants told him that he was only receiving a warning. He
repeatedly asked if he could leave and was told that he could not. Eventually a K-9 unit arrived
and Defendants searched his vehicle. Plaintiff was arrested. Id.
II. GROUND OF THE MOTIONS

Each Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF Nos. 32, 36.
III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A fact is
“material” if it could change the outcome of the litigation. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). And a dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The Court views the evidence
in the light most favorable to the nonmovant but need not comb through the record in search of
evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. See Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th

Cir. 2003). Moreover, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly
contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
B. Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity insulates a government official from civil damages liability when the
official’s actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). For a

2
right to be “clearly established,” that right’s contours must be “sufficiently clear that a reasonable
official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483
U.S. 635, 640 (1987). Individual liability thus turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the
defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law at the time. Hunter v. Bryant, 502

U.S. 224, 228 (1991); Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639-40. In Harlow, the Supreme Court explained that
a key question is “whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred,” because
“[i]f the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected
to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘know’ that the law
forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful.” 457 U.S. at 818. If public officials of
reasonable competence could differ on the lawfulness of defendant’s actions, the defendant is
entitled to qualified immunity. Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S.
335, 341 (1986); Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th Cir. 1992).
In analyzing whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court
considers whether the plaintiff has alleged any violation of a clearly established right, and, if so,

whether the individual defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S.
226, 231 (1991); Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 276-80 (5th Cir. 1992). In so doing,
the court should not assume that the plaintiff has stated a claim, i.e., asserted a violation of a
constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232. Rather, the court must be certain that, if the facts
alleged by the plaintiff are true, a violation has clearly occurred. Connelly v. Comptroller, 876 F.2d
1209, 1212 (5th Cir. 1989). Even if defendants are alleged to have acted in unison, the court must
address the actions of each individually to determine whether qualified immunity applies.
Meadours v. Ermel, 483 F.3d 417, 421-22 (5th Cir. 2007); Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 537

3
(5th Cir. 1999).
A mistake in judgment does not cause an officer to lose his qualified immunity defense. In
Hunter, the Supreme Court explained:
The qualified immunity standard “gives ample room for mistaken
judgments” by protecting “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law.” Malley, [475 U.S.] at 343. . . . This accommodation for reasonable
error exists because “officials should not err always on the side of caution” because
they fear being sued.

502 U.S. at 229. “[A]n allegation of malice is not sufficient to defeat immunity if the defendant
acted in an objectively reasonable manner.” Malley, 475 U.S. at 341. Further, that the officer
himself may have created the situation does not change the analysis. That he could have handled
the situation better does not affect his entitlement to qualified immunity. Cass v. City of Abilene,
814 F.3d 721, 731–32 (5th Cir. 2016); Young v. City of Killeen, 775 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (5th Cir.
1985).
When a defendant relies on qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to negate the
defense. Kovacic v. Villareal, 628 F.3d 209, 211-12 (5th Cir. 2010); Foster v. City of Lake Jackson,
28 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 1994). The standard is demanding. Vincent v. City of Sulphur, 805 F.3d
543, 547 (5th Cir. 2015). Although Supreme Court precedent does not require a case directly on
point, existing precedent must place the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate. White
v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017). That is, the clearly established law upon which the plaintiff relies
should not be defined at a high level of generality, but must be particularized to the facts of the
case. Id. Thus, failure to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was
held to have violated a plaintiff’s rights will most likely defeat the plaintiff’s ability to overcome
a qualified immunity defense. Id. at 79–80; Surratt v. McClarin, 851 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2017).

4
IV. ANALYSIS
Texas law allows a person to be detained upon reasonable suspicion that the person
committed a traffic violation. Guerra v. State, 432 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Authority for detention ends when the tasks tied to the traffic violation are or should have been

completed. Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Rodriguez v.
United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)). In other words, law enforcement may not extend the
stop to engage in a fishing expedition for unrelated criminal activity. Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d
240, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (citing Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 41 (1996) (Ginsburg, J.,
concurring)). Officers may, however, extend the stop if they develop a reasonable suspicion that
other criminal activity has occurred or is occurring. Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 191; Lambeth v. State,
221 S.W.3d 831, 836 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d).
Texas law requires a driver to signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of
movement of the vehicle before a turn. If an officer sees a vehicle turn without having properly
signaled, he has reasonable suspicion to pull the car over. United States v. Watson, 751 F. App’x

592, 593 (5th Cir. 2019); State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Likewise,
if an officer observes that a vehicle has not maintained a single lane of traffic in a safe manner, he
has reasonable suspicion to pull the car over. United States v. Pena, 227 F. App’x 324, 326 (5th
Cir. 2007); Aviles v. State, 23 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d).
The issue is not whether traffic laws were actually violated, but rather whether it was reasonable
for the officer to believe that the law had been violated. Pena, 227 F. App’x at 326; United States
v. Ramirez, 213 F. Supp. 2d 722, 724 (S.D. Tex. 2002). Plaintiff does not dispute that he had

5
committed a traffic violation4 and there is no genuine issue about the initial traffic stop.
Once a vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, officers may order the
driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment. Arizona v. Johnson, 555
U.S. 323, 331 (2009). That is what happened here.

Officers may search a vehicle if they have probable cause to do so. United States v. Ortiz,
781 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 523 (5th Cir. 2006).
Probable cause exists when “trustworthy facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge .
. . would cause a reasonably prudent man to believe the car contains contraband.” United States v.
Guzman, 739 F.3d 241, 246 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Banuelos-Romero, 597 F.3d
763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010)). Officers may “draw on their own experience and specialized training to
make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them.” United
States v. Smith, 952 F.3d 642, 648 (5th Cir. 2020). Making a probable cause determination requires
the court to consider the totality of the circumstances rather than isolated factors. United States v.
Phillips, No. 22-50745, 2024 WL 323498, at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2024). The operative analysis

involves an objective test independent of the officer’s subjective belief. Id. (citing Whren v. United
States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)).
“[A] dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission.” Rodriguez,
575 U.S. at 356. Thus, to justify detaining a driver beyond completion of the traffic investigation,
there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Id. at 358. As the Fifth Circuit has
explained, there is “no constitutional stopwatch on traffic stops. Instead, the relevant question in

4 Plaintiff’s failure to address the issue in his summary judgment response constitutes a waiver of it. Magee v. Life
Ins. Co. of N. Am., 261 F. Supp. 2d 738, 748 n.10 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (citing cases). In any event, the video recordings
of the stop reflect Plaintiff’s acceptance of the reasons for the stop.

6
assessing whether a detention extends beyond a reasonable duration is ‘whether the police
diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions
quickly.’” United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v.
Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985)). That an officer immediately calls for a dog sniff after the driver

refuses to consent to the search of his vehicle is evidence of diligence. And, in that regard, a wait
of twenty-one minutes for a dog to arrive is not unreasonable. Phillips, 2024 WL 323498, at *4
(citing cases holding that a thirty-five minute stop is not unreasonable, nor is a forty-five minute
delay before calling a K-9 unit). See ECF No. 49 at 6, n. 12 (citing cases). Thus, if Defendants had
a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the length of time it took for the dog to arrive and for
the search to be conducted is reasonable under Fifth Circuit precedent. Once a dog alerts on a
vehicle, as happened in this case, probable cause for a search of the vehicle exists. United States
v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106–07 (5th Cir. 1993).
Here, the evidence supports Defendants’ position that they had reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity by Plaintiff. Both Defendants recognized that Plaintiff was traveling down a

known drug corridor. ECF No. 33, Def. App. 0054, ¶ 13; Def. App. 0062, ¶ 21. Based on his
training, Defendant Maiden was suspicious of Plaintiff when he saw him drive through a gas
station parking lot. He followed Plaintiff’s car out of the lot and observed it swerve while driving.
He also observed Plaintiff put on his left blinker for twenty-one seconds without turning, then turn
left without using his blinker onto Power Plant Road, a private road. It was almost 11 p.m. and
Plaintiff was not driving a company work truck (as would be expected on that road). His behavior
was consistent with a person trying to avoid law enforcement. Id. Def. App. 0052–54, ¶¶ 4–8.
Defendant Roebuck arrived after Plaintiff had been stopped. Id. Def. App. 0060, ¶ 3. Both

7
Defendants observed Plaintiff being overly chatty and volunteering irrelevant information and
being particularly sweaty. Id. Def. App. 0054, ¶¶ 10–12, Def. App. 0055, ¶¶ 14–15, Def. App.
0056, ¶ 20, Def. App. 0061, ¶¶ 11, 12, 14, Def. App. 0062, ¶¶ 15, 17. Defendant Roebuck observed
Plaintiff roll up his windows and lock his vehicle when he was asked to step out, which was

unusual and led Roebuck to believe Plaintiff was concealing something. Def. App. 0062, ¶ 19.
Defendant Maiden observed Plaintiff make inconsistent statements. Def. App. 0054, ¶¶9, 11, 12,
Def. App. 0055, ¶ 14. Defendant Maiden also observed Plaintiff being overly nervous about being
pulled over. Def. App. 0056, ¶ 23. When Plaintiff refused consent for a search of the vehicle,
Defendant Maiden immediately called for a K-9 unit. Def. App. 0057, ¶¶ 24–25.
In his deposition, Plaintiff testified: There “was a lot of methamphetamines in Graham,
Texas.” ECF No. 33 at 0025 (page 95, lines 23–24). He was most likely sweating a lot. Id. at 009
(page 35, line 3), 034 (page 132, line 7). He commented on the video that his shirt was soaked and
that he perspired easily. Id. at 023 (page 85, lines 21–23). He told Defendants he drank water,
showing them all the water bottles in his car. Id. at 015 (page 55, lines 20–23). He was worried

when he was pulled over. Id. at 018 (page 68, lines 19–25). He did not want to admit it, but if the
video reflected that he apologized for swerving, he would not dispute it. Id. at 027 (page 101–02),
032 (page 122, lines 12–14). He did put his blinker on for an extended period of time, then turned
it off, then he turned onto Power Plant Road, where he was stopped. Id. at 033 (page 126, line 25—
page 127, line 14).
Defendants’ summary of the video evidence appears to be accurate. ECF No. 32 at 1–9.
Although it is difficult to tell from the grainy video footage how sweaty Plaintiff is at any particular
time, Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he was sweaty. The video evidence shows Plaintiff

8
drinking a bottle of water during the stop. Plaintiff did tell Defendants that he only drinks water
and showed them numerous water bottles in his vehicle. The search of the vehicle confirmed the
consumption of water. ECF No. 33, Exs. 1–3. Defendants could reasonably have concluded that
Plaintiff was drinking a lot of water.

In sum, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that
Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. He cites petitions for writs of certiorari that
were denied in cases affirming suspicion to extend traffic stops. See United States v. Santillan, 902
F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1467 (2019); United States v. Gholston, 1 F.4th
492 (7th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1421 (2022). The one case seemingly supporting his
position is based on facts that are distinguishable.5 Klaver v. Hamilton Cnty., TN, No. 22-5083,
2022 WL 16647970 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1004 (2023). Plaintiff has not
cited any Texas cases in which officers acting under similar circumstances were held to have
committed a constitutional violation. Defendants, on the other hand, have pointed to cases showing
that search of a vehicle is authorized where, under the totality of the circumstances, trustworthy

facts within the officer’s knowledge would cause a reasonably prudent person to believe the car
contained contraband. ECF No. 32 at 15, 19–20 (citing cases). The Court cannot say that it is
beyond debate that Defendants did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Consequently,
even if Defendants did not have reasonable suspicion, any violation was not clearly established.
See Thompson v. Richter, No. 7:22-CV-0014-O, 2024 WL 3346296, at *8 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2024).
Finally, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Roebuck harassed him

5 Nervousness and refusal to cooperate did not lend defendants a major justification for reasonable suspicion under
Sixth Circuit law. Klaver v. Hamilton Cnty., TN, No. 22-5083, 2022 WL 1664970, at *6–*7 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022),
cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1004 (2023).

9
“8 different times in which my 4th Amendment rights were violated.” ECF No. 8 at 5. The
allegation is wholly conclusory and insufficient to support a claim. Even had a claim been alleged,
Plaintiff has not shown that Roebuck is not entitled to qualified immunity, much less that Roebuck
violated his constitutional rights. That the conduct, if it occurred, was immature, inappropriate,
and may have violated state law does not entitle Plaintiff to relief here.
V. CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against
them are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs sur-reply is STRICKEN from the record.
SO ORDERED this Ist day of August, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10672285. Public record. Not legal advice.