“We will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Plaintiff] has failed to assert.”
How later courts described this case
- “We will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Plaintiff] has failed to assert.”
- holding the plaintiff failed to state a claim where he alleged that the defendant had a policy of allowing officers to use excessive force, but offered no facts in support of this allegation beyond the circumstances of his own case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 24-10961 Document: 67-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 14, 2025
No. 24-10961
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
____________
Myisha Niter, on behalf of minor children, C.W., C.W., and C.W.,
the children of Christopher Darnell Williams (Decedent);
George Williams, Individually as Father of Christopher
Darnell Williams (Decedent),
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Marian Brown, in her official capacity as Sheriff of Dallas County;
Does, in their Individual and official capacity as agents/employees of Dallas
County Sheriff’s Office; Dallas County; Texas Department of
Public Safety,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:23-CV-1621
______________________________
Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-10961 Document: 67-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2025
No. 24-10961
Christopher Darnell Williams died by suicide while detained in Dallas
County Jail. His family sued the Texas Department of Public Safety,
(“TDPS”), Dallas County, Sheriff Marian Brown, and unknown jail
employees. Plaintiff-Appellants brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging Defendant-Appellees failed to monitor Williams and removed him
from a mental health unit without proper evaluation. The district court
dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims. We AFFIRM.
Plaintiffs do not brief, and have therefore abandoned, any challenge to
two aspects of the dismissal. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims
against TDPS without prejudice based on sovereign immunity. And, it
dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the unknown jail employees based on
limitations and failure to serve. Because Plaintiffs have not briefed these
rulings, they are AFFIRMED. 1
As to Plaintiffs’ claims against Dallas County and Sheriff Brown in her
official capacity, the district court found that Plaintiffs failed to plead
sufficient facts to allege a plausible Monell claim. We agree. To state a Monell
claim which meets federal pleading standards, 2 a plaintiff must allege a
municipal policymaker promulgated a “policy or custom” that was the
_____________________
1
See Brinkmann v. Dal. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987) (“We will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Plaintiff] has failed to assert.”).
2
Although Plaintiffs cite Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and
Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993), for the assertion that mere notice pleading is
sufficient for a municipal liability claim, this is incorrect. See Ratliff v. Aransas Cnty., 948
F.3d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[W]e note that the ordinary Twombly pleading standard
applies. It is, of course, true that Leatherman, a pre-Twombly case, held that courts must not
apply a ‘heightened’ pleading standard to Monell claims. However, Leatherman did not
require courts to accept ‘generic or boilerplate’ pleadings in this case or in any other
context. Indeed, our precedents make clear that the Twombly standard applies to municipal
liability claims.”).
2
Case: 24-10961 Document: 67-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2025
No. 24-10961
“moving force” of an alleged constitutional violation. 3 “To proceed beyond
the pleading stage, a complaint’s description of a policy or custom and its
relationship to the underlying constitutional violation cannot be conclusory;
it must contain specific facts.” 4
Here, Plaintiffs did not plead facts plausibly alleging Defendants had
a “policy” that led to Williams’ death. True, Plaintiffs allege Defendants
failed to regularly monitor inmates as required by state law. But beyond the
circumstances of their own case, Plaintiffs allege no facts showing a broader
policy. We have repeatedly held in similar cases that a conclusory allegation
of the existence of a policy, coupled with the facts of a plaintiff’s own case, is
insufficient to adequately plead the “policy” element of a Monell claim. 5
Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed.
Finally, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim against Sheriff
Brown in her individual capacity based on qualified immunity. “Qualified
immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly
established constitutional right.” 6 “[P]retrial detainees have a Fourteenth
Amendment right to be protected from a known risk of suicide.” 7 Thus, jail
officials violate a detainee’s constitutional rights if they “gained actual
_____________________
3
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
4
Peña v. City of Rio Grande City, 879 F.3d 613, 622 (5th Cir. 2018).
5
See id. (holding the plaintiff failed to state a Monell claim where she alleged the
city had a policy of tasing juvenile non-suspects because “the only specific fact in the
complaint is the single incident in which [plaintiff] was involved” and “a plaintiff must do
more than describe the incident that gave rise to his injury” to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion); Ratliff, 948 F.3d at 285 (holding the plaintiff failed to state a claim where he
alleged that the defendant had a policy of allowing officers to use excessive force, but
offered no facts in support of this allegation beyond the circumstances of his own case).
6
Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2020).
7
Id.
3
Case: 24-10961 Document: 67-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/14/2025
No. 24-10961
knowledge of the substantial risk of suicide and responded with deliberate
indifference.” 8 But here, Plaintiffs do not allege that Brown knew Williams
was at risk of suicide. In fact, as the district court observes, “Plaintiffs do not
allege that Brown was at the jail when Decedent was there or that she was
personally involved in decisions regarding his confinement.” Because
Plaintiffs have not alleged that Brown acted with deliberate indifference to
Williams’s constitutional rights, dismissal of their § 1983 claim against
Brown was proper.
AFFIRMED.
_____________________
8
Id. (emphasis added).
4