Leonard Johnson v. Town of Prosper, Paul D. Boothe, Doug Kowalski – Ruling

Case Update

From time to time, folks ask me, “What’s the status of the case?” That’s usually followed by, “Why is it taking so long?”

Let me just say—being involved in a lawsuit takes time. SMU began working on my case around Thanksgiving of 2022. It took nearly six months just to make the initial filing, which happened on July 17, 2023. After that, we entered the answer and counter-answer phase with the defendants, which wasn’t completed until November 21, 2023.

That’s a long time just to get something in front of a judge—but apparently, it’s typical in cases like this. Everything in the complaint had to be backed by case law, which meant a lot of research. SMU had to dig through historic cases, compare them to my situation, and frame everything into a single complaint—under 30 pages. Needless to say, this process is tedious and has to be done right the first time—there are no do-overs.

Once that was done, the judge had to do his own due diligence. He posts his hearing schedule online two weeks in advance, and I’d check each week to see if my case had been added. Let’s just say—he’s a busy man. After reading his ruling, I now understand why it took so long.

To bring everyone up to speed:
The core of my complaint focused on violations of my First and Fourth Amendment rights by Prosper Police Officer Paul Boothe. The second part of the complaint was supervisory liability by Prosper Police Chief Doug Kowalski. The third part was municipal liability against the Town of Prosper. Each of the three defendants filed motions to dismiss.

The judge broke the ruling into two parts:

Part One:

Addressed:

• First and Fourth Amendment violations
• Qualified immunity claims (Boothe)
• Supervisory liability (Kowalski)

Ruling:

• The motion to dismiss the First and Fourth Amendment violations and qualified immunity claims was denied.
  This means we can move forward with our lawsuit against Officer Boothe.
• The motion to dismiss the supervisory liability was granted.
  While this isn’t ideal—because we all know the role the chief played—there will be opportunities for that truth to come out later.

Dkt-25-Order-re-Officers-Motion-to-Dismiss

Part Two:

Addressed:

• Municipal liability against the Town of Prosper

I’ll admit—when I heard the chief was cleared, my heart sank. I assumed the Town would be cleared as well. But I was pleasantly surprised to find out otherwise.

Ruling:

The motion to dismiss the municipal liability claim was denied.
This means we can also move forward with that part of the lawsuit.

Dkt-26-Order-re-Town-Motion-to-Dismiss

ll of this came out on Friday, May 30th, and I haven’t had a chance to meet with my lawyers yet. Needless to say, it was great news for me! There are still some hurdles to overcome — such as possible appeals — but it’s still a major win.

Even though the Chief’s motion to dismiss was granted, this still marks a significant setback for the Town. So, how many folks think the Chief of Prosper might be announcing his retirement in the near future?