Qualified Immunity

Shielding Misconduct, Silencing Accountability

Qualified Immunity in Montgomery County Texas:

Exposing Dan Plake: How Montgomery County’s Attorney Manipulates Case Law to Block Civil Rights

In Montgomery County, Texas, the legal doctrine of qualified immunity has become more than a shield, it’s a weapon. Under the direction of Montgomery County Attorney Office, BC Griffin, the Litigation Attorney Daniel Plake, this doctrine is misapplied to dismiss legitimate civil rights cases and protect law enforcement officers from accountability, even when their actions violate constitutional rights.

What Is Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that protects government officials from personal liability unless they violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. It was originally intended to balance two interests:

Holding officials accountable when they act irresponsibly

Shielding them from frivolous lawsuits when they act in good faith

But in practice, especially in the Fifth Circuit (which includes Texas), it has become a near-impenetrable barrier for victims of government abuse

How It’s Misused in Montgomery County

Dan Plake, Montgomery County’s Attorney, has been documented using qualified immunity not as a legal safeguard—but as a strategic tool to:

Dismiss civil rights lawsuits prematurely, before facts can be heard in court

Misquote precedent, such as Elder v. Holloway (1994), to imply blanket immunity where none exists

Rely on outdated or fabricated Fifth Circuit rulings to block accountability

Protect law enforcement officers even in cases involving excessive force, illegal searches, or retaliatory arrests

This misuse undermines the very foundation of constitutional protections and denies citizens their right to due process.

Real-World Impact

Victims of misconduct, whether falsely profiled, ecxessive force, and even death, find their cases dismissed not because the facts are weak, but because qualified immunity is invoked before discovery even begins. This:

Silences whistleblowers and plaintiffs

Discourages attorneys from taking civil rights cases

Embeds impunity into local law enforcement culture

Justice Guard has documented patterns where psychological tactics, surveillance, and retaliatory arrests are used against citizens who challenge authority, only to be blocked in court by Plake’s aggressive outdated immunity defenses.

🔍 What Needs to Change

Transparency in legal strategy: Citizens deserve to know when immunity is invoked, under what authority, and why.

Judicial scrutiny: Courts must stop rubber-stamping immunity claims without factual review

Legislative reform: Texas lawmakers must revisit how qualified immunity is applied at the county level.

Public reporting tools: Justice Guard is building platforms for citizens to report misconduct and track immunity-based dismissals.

Join the Fight

Justice Guard is investigating every immunity-based dismissal tied to Montgomery County. If you or someone you know has had a civil rights case blocked by Dan Plake or his office, we want to hear from you.

Report misconduct 📁 Access case law and dismissal records 📢 Demand transparency and reform

Qualified immunity was never meant to protect abuse. It’s time to reclaim justice.

Link
Community Awareness Campaigns
Uncovering Local Injustices Together

“Immunity” Isn’t Impunity:

Why Montgomery County Can Still Be Held Accountable

By Deborah Swan, Justice Guard Conroe, Texas – November 12, 2025

When Montgomery County moved to dismiss Patience Swan’s lawsuit, it leaned on a familiar shield: state sovereign immunity. The County argued that because Texas law doesn’t waive immunity for “intentional torts,” it couldn’t be sued—even if its own prosecutor engaged in malicious prosecution or fabricated evidence.

But here’s the truth: this isn’t just a state tort case. It’s a federal civil rights case. And under federal law, Montgomery County is not immune.

🧾 The Legal Shell Game

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 101.057(2) does indeed bar lawsuits against counties for intentional torts like assault or false imprisonment—but only under state law. That statute has no bearing on lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights law passed after the Civil War to hold government actors accountable for constitutional violations.

In other words, you can’t sue the County for battery—but you can sue it for violating your Fourth Amendment rights.

⚖️ What Federal Law Actually Says

Under the landmark case Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), counties and municipalities can be held liable under § 1983 when:

  • The misconduct stems from an official policy, custom, or failure to train;
  • The violation was ratified by decision-makers; or
  • The conduct was so widespread it effectively became policy.

This means that even if an individual official like Dan Plane claims qualified immunity, the County itself can still be sued—because qualified immunity does not apply to governments, only individuals.

🧩 Swan v. Plane and the Pattern of Procedural Shields

In Swan’s case, the court sidestepped the federal claims by focusing on state immunity. In Walter v. Shields, another Montgomery County case, the court dismissed the suit against a law enforcement officer by invoking qualified immunity—arguing that the officer’s conduct didn’t violate “clearly established” law.

Together, these cases reveal a troubling pattern: officials avoid accountability not by disproving the facts, but by hiding behind legal doctrines that block victims from even reaching a jury.

🔍 Why This Matters

If courts allow counties to dodge federal civil rights claims by mislabeling them as state torts, they’re not just misapplying the law—they’re gutting the very purpose of § 1983. That statute was designed to give people a remedy when local governments violate their rights. It was born from a history of abuse and impunity. It is not optional.

🗣️ Justice Guard’s Position

We believe the courts must recognize the difference between state tort immunity and federal civil rights liability. We call on the judiciary to:

  • Allow § 1983 claims to proceed when constitutional violations are plausibly alleged;
  • Reject procedural dismissals that mischaracterize federal claims as state torts;
  • Hold counties accountable when their policies, training failures, or ratifications cause harm.

Because immunity should never mean impunity.

Join the fight
Stand up for your rights today.

Get in touch
Understanding your rights
Empower yourself through knowledge

  • A concerned citizen reviewing documents about local law enforcement, with a map of the community in the background, highlighting areas of concern.
    Step 1: community assessment
    Identify risks in your community.
    Learn more
  • A determined whistleblower receiving guidance from a legal expert, surrounded by supportive materials and documents.
    Step 2: whistleblower protection
    Support for whistleblowers.
    Learn more
  • An investigative journalist analyzing data on a laptop, with notes and evidence spread out, showcasing the effort to unveil the truth.
    Step 3: investigative reporting
    Conduct thorough investigations.
    Learn more
  • A community gathering with diverse individuals listening to a speaker, sharing information about constitutional rights and community safety.
    Step 4: community awareness campaigns
    Engage in community education.
    Learn more
Subscribe to our newsletter
Let's keep in touch!

Stay updated on our news and events! Sign up to receive our newsletter.