Macwilliams v. San Antonio Police Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
JESSIE MACWILLIAMS, #922040,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEP’T; ET
AL.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
SA-23-CV-00219-JKP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants, San Antonio Police Department, Desiree Rodriguez, and
Andre Taylor’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and/or Motion for Summary
Judgment.1 ECF No. 83. After due consideration of the briefing, the record evidence, and the
applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES this case. Final judgment will
be entered by separate order.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case involves a homicide near an LA Fitness gym in San Antonio, Texas. ECF Nos.
23 at 4; 83-1 at 2. Plaintiff Jessie Macwilliams, proceeding pro se, was captured on video disposing
of a gun near the scene and fleeing. ECF Nos. 83-3, 83-4. Macwilliams was arrested, charged, and
ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity for the homicide. ECF Nos. 23 at 9; 83-1 at 4;
83-5 at 2. Although Macwilliams’ allegations are difficult to understand, he generally appears to
allege that he was framed for the homicide by a police officer who placed the gun in his hand and
forced him into the LA Fitness. ECF No. 23.
1 The Court will evaluate Defendants’ Motion under a summary judgment standard because they include video footage
and photos as summary judgment evidence. ECF Nos. 83-2, 83-3, 83-4.
Case 5:23-cv-00219-JKP Document 86 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Defendants Andre Taylor and Desiree Rodriguez are the police officers who responded to
the scene of the crime and arrested Macwilliams. ECF No. 83-1 at 4. Upon arriving and
encountering Macwilliams, Defendants Taylor and Rodriguez ordered him to get down on the
ground and then placed him in handcuffs. Id. Defendants transported Macwilliams to police
headquarters. Id.
Macwilliams brought this action on February 21, 2023. ECF No. 1. This Court initially
dismissed this case for failure to prosecute (ECF Nos. 13, 14) but reopened it after Macwilliams
filed his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23). The Court construed Macwilliams’s Amended
Complaint as bringing claims against Defendants San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”),
Taylor, and Rodriguez. ECF No. 55 at 2. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c) and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83) to which Macwilliams did not
file a response.
II. 	LEGAL S TANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), courts “grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are
material” and a fact is material only if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When “the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” a dispute over a material fact
qualifies as “genuine” within the meaning of Rule 56. Id. Because there must be a genuine dispute
of material fact, “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 247–48. There is no
genuine dispute for trial when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
Case 5:23-cv-00219-JKP Document 86 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 5

3
find for the nonmoving party.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986)).
In determining whether to grant summary judgment, courts view all facts and reasonable
inferences drawn from the record “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”
Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C., 832 F.3d 224, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). “Unsubstantiated
assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a
motion for summary judgment.” Id. Furthermore, the courts have “no duty to search the record for
material fact issues.” RSR Corp. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851, 857 (5th Cir. 2010); accord
Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 651 (5th Cir. 2012).
In appropriate circumstances, factual allegations arising out of events captured on video
may be viewed “in the light depicted by the videotape.” Scott, 550 U.S. at 381. “When opposing
parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no
reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of
ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 380.
A court may not grant summary judgment by default should the nonmovant fail to respond.
Macias v. Bexar County, No. SA-21-CV-193-JKP, 2024 WL 1161729, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 18,
2024); Eversley v. MBank of Dall., 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988). In this event, the Court must
still review the summary judgment motion to determine whether the movant satisfied its summary
judgment burden and thereby shifted the burden. See Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326,
335 (5th Cir. 2017).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Although Macwilliams’s Amended Complaint is difficult to decipher, he generally appears
to allege that a police officer framed him by forcing a gun into his hand. ECF No. 23 at 5–7. The
Case 5:23-cv-00219-JKP Document 86 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Court construes these allegations as bringing a fabrication of evidence claim through Section 1983.
The Fifth Circuit has recognized “a substantive due process right ‘not to have police deliberately
fabricate evidence and use it to frame and bring false charges against a person.’ ” Traylor v. Yorka,
No. 22-10783, 2024 WL 209444, at *4 (5th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024) (quoting Cole v. Carson, 802 F.3d
752, 771 (5th Cir. 2015)). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
A. Defendant SAPD
Macwilliams cannot sue SAPD because it is a non-jural entity. Federal district courts across
Texas have repeatedly and consistently held that municipal police departments are non-jural
entities that lack the capacity to be sued. Villarreal v. Willacy Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:24-CV-
57, 2024 WL 3873751, at *4 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2024) (collecting cases), R. & R. adopted, 2024
WL 3871759 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2024); Shah v. Maple Energy Holdings, LLC, No. PE-25-CV-
47-DC-DF, 2026 WL 1631627, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2026), R. & R. adopted, 2026 WL
2123134 (W.D. Tex. July 23, 2026). Thus, SAPD is entitled to summary judgment.
B. Defendants Taylor & Rodriguez
Defendants Taylor and Rodriguez are likewise entitled to summary judgment. The
elements of Macwilliams’s fabrication of evidence claim are: (1) the defendant fabricated
evidence, (2) for the purpose of falsely obtaining a charge, and (3) the evidence influenced the
decision to charge the plaintiff. Sandoval v. Bexar County, No. SA-23-CV-609-XR, 2025 WL
5238636, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2025) (citing Brown v. Morgan, No. 5:20-CV-215-BQ, 2022
WL 22329966, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2022)). Taylor and Rodriguez have met their burden of
showing that there is no dispute of fact over whether they fabricated evidence.
Here, the summary judgment evidence shows that there is no dispute of fact as to whether
Taylor and Rodriguez fabricated evidence. Defendants provided body camera footage as well as
Case 5:23-cv-00219-JKP Document 86 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 5

5
an outdoor surveillance video of Macwilliams’ arrest. ECF Nos. 83-2, 83-3, 83-4. The videos
clearly show that Macwilliams did not have a gun when Taylor and Rodriguez arrived on the scene
and that at no point did either Defendant place one in his hands. ECF No. 83-3 at 0:54. To the
extent Macwilliams is alleging that Taylor and Rodriguez gave him a gun before this encounter,
he does not provide any competent evidence to support this allegation. Thus, Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83) and DISMISSES this
case with prejudice. Final judgment will be entered by separate order.
SIGNED on this 9th day of October 2026.
____________________________________
JASON K. PULLIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-00219-JKP Document 86 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 5