Sandra Bland was pulled over by a Texas state trooper, told to put out her cigarette, and then tazed and arrested. She died a few days later in jail custody. The legal wrangling has begun and the case is under way. Prior story here. Here's an update.
Lawyers for Trooper Encinia and the other Texas state defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2015. Such a motion, if granted, would result in complete dismissal of the case. Lawyers for the family of Sandra Bland filed their opposition brief on September 24, 2015. We can expect a ruling from the court within 1 to 2 months. The briefing from both sides is not exactly a testament to quality legal writing. Both the motion and the response brief contain sloppy editing, antiquated style, and uncreative writing in general. The government's motion contains this apostrophe-plural disaster, for example:
Plaintiffs’ brings a claim for the state tort of assault and battery against Trooper Encinia.
Not to be outdone, the family's lawyers produced their own gems, like this run-on rant that contains its own mysterious apostrophe use:
Plaintiffs' contend that the State of Texas waived Eleventh Amendment immunity when it adopted the Texas Tort Claims Act and therefore Defendant, DPS', motion should be denied and DPS should be ordered to answer Plaintiffs' Complaint at Law.
Maybe Texans have a secret code for using apostrophes that the rest of us are unaware of. In any case, what are the merits of the Texas defendants' arguments? Some of them seem to hold water and others do not. Texas first argues that the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Texas state entity is entitled to sovereign immunity against federal claims under the U.S. Constitution's 11th Amendment. This argument is made on behalf of the Texas DPS only, not on behalf of Trooper Encinia. To support it, Texas cites the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), among other precedents.
The argument is probably correct and the family's opposition to it strikes me as pretty weak: they argue that Texas has waived its 11th Amendment immunity against federal claims (which this lawsuit contains) because Texas, like most states, has passed laws allowing persons to sue the State of Texas through Texas state law. To support their argument, the family offers no citations, neither to decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, nor to any other federal or state court. This suggests that there are no precedents supporting the argument, which means it's probably meritless.
This aspect of the motion will probably be granted, then: the federal claims against the Texas DPS will be dismissed. Texas goes on to also offer a meek argument seeking the dismissal of claims against Trooper Encinia. These claims, of course, are the true heart of the lawsuit. And here, Texas's arguments fail to impress, even setting aside the sloppy editing. It argues in essence that Encinia is entitled to qualified immunity under federal constitutional law. It is true that qualified immunity will be an issue in this case, from start to finish. But in a case with facts like this one, the court will be hesitant to conclude that qualified immunity applies without any factual discovery even taking place, much less an eventual trial.
Texas boldly asserts that now is as good a time as any to argue qualified immunity, nonetheless. It argues that "the complaint fails to state in what way Trooper Encinia is not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity." This argument just doesn't pass the smell test. A complaint in federal court doesn't have to state "in what way a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity." The upshot of all of this is that some specific claims may soon be dismissed as a result of this motion, while others will likely remain intact.