UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10512
Summary Calendar
JOEL R. MARICLE; JEREMY STONE; GABRIELLE LINTON;
JEFF FOSTER; LEONARD RAY HARRISON; JEFF JONES;
JAY E. LOWE; DAVID McCULLOUGH; JOYCE OAKS, on
behalf of Renador Oaks; DIXIE PATAPOFF; ELLA REYNOLDS
RELFORD; BOBBY RAY REYNOLDS, JR.; QUINTIS WEATHERALL;
RICHARD LYNN WILSON; BILLY HIGHTOWER; MYREO SAMPSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
LANA BIGGERSTAFF, Individually and in her capacity as Chief of
Police of Commerce, Texas; CITY OF COMMERCE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:97-CV-3029)
January 8, 1999
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs appeal the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their suit against Lana
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Biggerstaff and the City of Commerce, Texas. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs sued the city of Commerce and its police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
contending that the city’s “Do Not Drive Policy” and “Towing Policy” deprived them
of their property rights without due process of law. These policies prohibit a driver
who cannot produce current proof of automobile liability insurance from taking the
vehicle from the scene of a traffic stop and allow the police to impound any such
automobile. Texas law provides that drivers cannot “operate” a vehicle unless proof
of insurance is “established.”1
The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the
plaintiffs had not alleged the violation of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court
held that the “Do Not Drive Policy” was permitted by the Texas insurance statute and
that this statute previously was found constitutional by this court. Further, the trial
court found that the “Towing Policy” was constitutional because the failure to
demonstrate proof of insurance provides probable cause for the seizure of the vehicle
and because the postdeprivation remedies provided adequate due process. Plaintiffs
timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.2 Our review of the record and briefs discloses no reversible error and,
1
Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.051.
2
Radford v. General Dynamics Corp., 151 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 1998).
2
accordingly, on the facts as found, the authorities cited, and analysis made by the
district court in its Memorandum Order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss signed
April 1, 1998, and the Memorandum Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration signed April 15, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
3