Howard-Barrows v. City of Haltom City - 106 F. App'x 912 (5th Cir. 2004)

Rule:

A plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 must (1) allege a violation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States or laws of the United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Facts:

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, plaintiff Joslyn Howard-Barrows filed an action against the City of Haltom City for wrongful incarceration, sexual harassment, invasion of privacy, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Plaintiff alleged that she was confined in the Haltom City jail for six days without being taken before a magistrate. She also alleged that her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because she was not informed of her right to counsel or provided with counsel before being detained. Moreover, plaintiff alleged that her Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because she was not provided with an indigency hearing to determine whether she had the means to pay her misdemeanor fines. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the city be held liable for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the plaintiff’s assertions were not sufficient to impose § 1983 liability on the city because she did not allege that the city had a policy or custom of preventing detainees from appearing before a magistrate in a timely manner. Because the inmate did not allege that she was interrogated, the Fifth Amendment was inapplicable. Further, because adversary judicial proceedings had not commenced while the plaintiff was detained, her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not implicated. Thus, the city was not liable for failing to inform the plaintiff of her right to counsel or for failing to appoint counsel for her. The court further held that the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were not implicated by the lack of an indigency hearing because she was never brought to court and sentenced for her misdemeanor violations, and thus, the city was not liable for failing to provide such a hearing. Moreover, the court averred that sexual harassment alone did not violate a detainee's constitutional rights, and therefore, the plaintiff had no claim against the city for any sexual harassment she suffered while in jail.