Davenport v. City of Garland, Texas

What This Case Is About

Davenport v. City of Garland is a textbook example of how municipal liability claims under § 1983 fail when a plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts. The court dismissed the claims against the City of Garland because the plaintiff offered nothing more than conclusory allegations about city policies and customs — without identifying the policymaker, prior incidents, or any causal connection.

The Facts

Randy Davenport filed suit against the City of Garland and several John Doe defendants, claiming that officers used excessive force during his arrest on October 11, 2007. Davenport had pled guilty to attempting to take a weapon from a police officer and was serving his sentence at the time of the lawsuit.

Davenport made several allegations: that the City had “practices, customs, policies and procedures” that caused his injuries; that the City had a “code of silence” regarding excessive force; that the City’s Internal Affairs Division inadequately investigated his complaint; and that the City failed to train officers or discipline those who used excessive force.

After the court required him to file more specific pleadings — giving him multiple opportunities to amend — Davenport filed amended complaints that repeated essentially the same conclusory allegations without adding factual support.

What the Court Decided

The magistrate judge recommended granting the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Applying Monell v. Department of Social Services and Piotrowski v. City of Houston, the court identified what Davenport needed but failed to provide:

No policymaker identified. Davenport never named the City’s final policymaker — the person with authority to make, adopt, or ratify the alleged policies. Without this, the claim cannot proceed.

No prior incidents alleged. To establish a “custom” of excessive force, a plaintiff must show similar incidents occurring with sufficient frequency to put the city on notice. Davenport alleged zero prior incidents.

No facts supporting failure-to-train. A failure-to-train claim requires showing that the municipality was “deliberately indifferent” to the need for training. Davenport provided no facts about the training program or its deficiencies.

No causal link. Even if a policy existed, Davenport did not show how it was the “moving force” behind the specific force used against him.

The court applied Twombly and Iqbal, emphasizing that conclusory allegations — like “the City has a code of silence” — are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Having given Davenport multiple opportunities to amend, the court dismissed with prejudice.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Davenport v. City of Garland is a roadmap of what not to do when suing a city:

• Name the policymaker. You must identify who in the city has final authority over the relevant policy area — the chief of police, the city council, a civil service commission.

• Allege prior incidents. A custom requires a pattern. You need to identify prior complaints, lawsuits, or incidents of similar misconduct.

• Provide facts, not conclusions. Saying “the city has a custom of excessive force” is a legal conclusion. You need facts: dates, names, descriptions of prior incidents.

• Show the causal link. Explain how the specific policy or custom caused your injury. A “but for” connection is not enough — it must be a direct, moving-force causation.

• Amend carefully. Courts will give you chances to fix your complaint, but each amendment must add new facts. Repeating the same conclusory allegations will result in dismissal with prejudice.

Key Takeaway

Davenport v. City of Garland demonstrates that suing a city under § 1983 requires far more than alleging that the city has bad policies. You must plead specific facts: who the policymaker is, what the policy or custom is, what prior incidents demonstrate the pattern, and how the policy directly caused your injury. Without these building blocks, your municipal liability claim will be dismissed.