Marcus L. Willis v. Diaz De Leon, Jeff Williams, Chief, City of Bedford

Dallas, Texas personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983.



Plaintiff Marcus L. Willis was driving in Bedford, Texas when Defendant Officer Diaz De Leon pulled him over. De Leon informed Willis that he stopped him for driving without valid insurance.1 De Leon then stated he smelled marijuana and proceeded to search Willis' vehicle. De Leon did not find contraband, but he cited Willis for driving without insurance. Willis filed a complaint with Defendant Police Chief Jeff Williams, reporting the search and alleging unlawful racial profiling. Williams did not take Willis' complaint seriously, mocked Willis, and did not investigate the incident.

Willis sued the City of Bedford, De Leon, and Williams (collectively, "Appellees”). These included claims—under § 1983—for: (1) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (2) racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) a claim for failure to train and supervise against Williams, and (4) a claim for failure to train and supervise against the City of Bedford. He also asserted an intentional discrimination claim under Texas law.



* * *



The district court found that De Leon had qualified immunity, and we agree. In resolving a qualified immunity claim, courts must "decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional

right,” and determine whether the "right at issue was clearly established.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).



* * *



Willis failed to sufficiently allege facts that amount to a constitutional violation. He was stopped due to a Texas state law violation, so the stop was justified at its inception. See United States v. Broca-Martinez, 855 F.3d 675,

680 (5th Cir. 2017) ("A state computer database indication of insurance status may establish reasonable suspicion when the officer is familiar with the database and the system itself is reliable.”). From there, De Leon developed probable cause to search Willis' car. United States v. Henke, 775 F.2d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 1985) ("Once the officer smelled the marijuana, he had probable cause to search the vehicle.”). The stop and search did not violate Willis' constitutional rights.

Motion for summary judgment granted.



Affirmed on appeal.