The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 23, 2024
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
TYLER HARRINGTON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-00366
§
JAMES LANCASTER, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is the defendants’, James Lancaster, and Jared Lindsay
(“defendants”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No.
9). The plaintiff, Tyler Harrington, has filed a response to the defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 11).
After reviewing the motion, the pleadings, the relevant exhibits, and the applicable law, the Court
determines that the defendants’ motion should be GRANTED.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is a civil rights case that centers around the actions of three Harris County deputy
constables: deputies James Lancaster, Jared Lindsay and Nathaniel Cano. It began with a call from
a woman, “Mrs. H”, who reported hearing knocking on her back door at her residence at 9819
Sagemark Drive. Deputy Lancaster responded to the call, spoke with Mrs. H, and conducted a
search of her property. He found no one and cleared the call and left the location. Approximately
an hour later, dispatcher informed deputies Lindsay and Cano that the homeowner’s husband, Mr.
H, stated that two people, a male and female were banging on their front and back doors and that
he could see them on their camera. He also stated that he and his son were not home, and his wife
1 / 6
had left because she was afraid. The homeowner’s son “Mr. S” informed the dispatcher that his
address was 9818 Sagemark Drive.
Shortly thereafter deputies Lindsay and Cano checked the front and back doors to see if
they were secure and found them to be unlocked. The dispatcher then informed the homeowners
that the doors were unlocked. Mr. and Mrs. H gave permission for the deputies to search the house
because the doors should have been locked. By this time, deputy Lancaster had joined deputies
Lindsay and Cano. Deputies Lindsay and Cano were given the address of 9818 Sagemark Drive
as the address to be searched. When they entered 9818 Sagemark Drive, they found a man and his
wife in bed. It was the plaintiff’s address. The deputies allegedly held the plaintiff and his wife
at gunpoint and allegedly displayed reckless conduct and a disregard for their federal constitutional
rights. When the deputies realized their mistake, they allegedly, failed to apologize or explain
their actions to the satisfaction of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleges he suffered lasting psychological harm and sues for violations of his
Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure and his Fourteenth Amendment
rights to “due process” and equal protection under 42 U.S.C § 1983, the Civil Rights Act.
III. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS
The plaintiff, contends that the defendants violated his constitutional rights through various
actions, as detailed in his complaint. More specifically, he asserts that the defendants entered his
home unlawfully in violation of proper police procedures, such as knocking and announcing, and
did so without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, thus violating his
Fourth Amendment rights. Moreover, the plaintiff argues, even though they were given an
incorrect address, they, nevertheless, conducted an unlawful search of his home.
2 / 6
They plaintiff also asserts that the defendants seized him unlawfully, ordered him around
at gunpoint, and used excessive force when waking him up, screaming and holding him at gunpoint
despite the non-violent non-emergency nature of the situation. These actions, according to the
plaintiff traumatized him and caused severe emotional distress.
IV. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS
The defendants assert in response to the plaintiff’s claims that they did not use excessive
force against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that he was physically
seize in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The force used was objectively reasonable and did
not result in injury to the plaintiff. Regarding the unlawful entry and search claims, the defendants
argue that the touchstone is reasonableness under the circumstances. They claim an exception to
the requirement of a warrant, emphasizing that where reasonable mistakes of facts occur an entry
and search without a warrant can be lawful. The deputies also assert that they reasonably relied on
the dispatcher and the consent of the complainant to search the premises, believing them to be the
homeowner. As such, their mistake was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, entitling them
to qualified immunity.
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes a motion to dismiss for “failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Under the demanding standards of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, “[t]he plaintiff’s complaint is to be construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
the allegations contained therein are to be taken as true.” Oppenheimer v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 94
F.3d 189, 194 (5th Cir. 1996). Dismissal is appropriate only if the “[f]actual allegations [are not]
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
3 / 6
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A court’s review is limited to the allegations in the complaint and any
documents attached to a defendant’s motion to dismiss, if they are both referred to in the complaint
and central to the claims. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.
2004).
VI. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
The Court is of the view that the mistaken entry into the plaintiff’s home by the defendants
is excused and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot state a “plausible’ cause of action. The defendants
were under the mistaken belief that they had the consent of the homeowners to enter the premises.
The defendants were merely following orders and the information received from the dispatcher.
The fact that deputy Lancaster had been previously dispatched to an address across the street from
the plaintiff’s residence, does not negate the possibility that a new threat at a different address on
the same street was in progress. In fact, the dispatcher confirmed that they were at the correct
address and that they had received the consent of the owners to enter the home to search for
intruders. Therefore, the act of entering the home, although in error, was reasonable given the
information available to the deputies.
In order to establish a cause of action under § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation, a
plaintiff must show he was seized, suffered an injury that was a direct result of a use of force that
exceeded the force necessary in the circumstance and that the force was objectively unreasonable.
See Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 644 (2012); see also Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi,
202 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir. 2000). When qualified immunity is a defense, a plaintiff must establish
that the defense is inapplicable. See King v. Handorf, 821 F.3d 650, 653 (5th Cir. 2016).
In the case at bar, the evidence shows that the officers believed that they were at the correct
address and that they had consent from the homeowner to search the premises. Their entry,
4 / 6
subsequent search, and seizure were conducted based on this perceived consent, which appeared
valid given the information provided. It is important to note that under the Fourth Amendment,
while a warrant is generally required for lawful entry into a home there are exceptions to this
requirement, such as consent from a resident.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a search and seizure stemming from factual
errors can be considered reasonable. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 183-186, (1990). Hence,
law enforcement officials are allowed a degree of leeway in their actions, acknowledging that
mistakes can occur.
Regarding the plaintiff’s alleged unlawful seizure claim, the defendants’ actions of
ordering the plaintiff to put his hands up and holding him at gunpoint while questioning him were
justified under the circumstances. The Court notes that the defendants were responding to reports
of suspicious activity in the area involving a male and female suspect possibly attempting to break
into a house. In light of this information, seizing the plaintiff and his wife were aimed at protecting
both, the officers and the residents, until the identity the individuals in the residence could be
obtained.
Finally, the Court finds that the actions taken by the defendants were reasonable under the
circumstances and did not constitute a use of excessive force. There is no factual proffer that any
force used exceeded what was required in order to take control of the situation. In fact, no physical
harm was reported by the plaintiff. In reaching this conclusion, the Court balances the intrusion on
the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment interest with that of the officers to protect themselves and the
residents.
From the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, the actions taken by the
defendants were justified. They were confronted with a potentially dangerous situation and acted
5 / 6
swiftly to ensure their safety and the safety of the residents. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for
excessive force under 42 U.S.C § 1983 is without merit. Finally, the Court finds that the defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity in this matter, under the circumstances. Handorf, 821 F.3d at
653. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the defense is inapplicable.
Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on April 23, 2024, at Houston, “7
United States District Judge
6/6