Assistant County Attorney Daniel Dale Plake has represented Montgomery County, the Sheriff’s Office, jail staff, probation officers, and other county employees in more than 100 federal cases spanning from 2009 to 2026. These cases include civil‑rights lawsuits, jail‑conditions claims, excessive‑force allegations, wrongful‑arrest suits, and constitutional challenges brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Justice Guard maintains this profile to help the public understand patterns of litigation, use of immunity defenses, and the County’s approach to civil‑rights accountability.
Role & Representation
Plake appears in federal court primarily as:
Defense counsel for Montgomery County
Defense counsel for Sheriff’s Office personnel
Defense counsel for jail and mental‑health staff
Defense counsel for probation and community‑supervision officers
Defense counsel for individual deputies and county employees
His cases frequently involve:
Fourth Amendment claims
Fourteenth Amendment claims
Jail medical and mental‑health issues
Use‑of‑force incidents
Arrest and detention disputes
Alleged unconstitutional policies or customs
Case Volume & Scope
Total Federal Cases Identified:
100+ cases across the Southern, Northern, and Western Districts of Texas.
Primary Court:
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
Years Active in Federal Litigation:
2009–2026
This volume reflects sustained, long‑term involvement in defending county actors in civil‑rights litigation.
Civil‑Rights & §1983 Cases
A significant portion of Plake’s docket involves constitutional claims brought under §1983. Examples include:
Snow v. Montgomery County
Chavez v. Montgomery County
Carr v. Montgomery County
Bibb v. Montgomery County Sheriff
Gann v. Montgomery County
Deyo v. Montgomery County
Ortiz v. Montgomery County
Dobbs v. Montgomery County
Herridge v. Montgomery County
Mosti v. Montgomery County
Burks v. Montgomery County
Galynsky v. Montgomery County Sheriff Office
Swan v. Shields (ongoing)
Bulfinch v. Montgomery County (ongoing)
These cases involve allegations of:
Excessive force
Wrongful arrest
Jail conditions
Mental‑health neglect
Failure to train or supervise
Unconstitutional policies or customs
Patterns in Case Outcomes
1. Early Dismissals
Many cases closed within 30–90 days, often before discovery. These rapid closures typically follow:
Qualified immunity motions
Sovereign immunity arguments
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss
Screening dismissals for pro se plaintiffs
Examples:
Bryant v. Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office
Mitchell v. Hamilton / Hebert / Gannucci / Humphrey
Barnes v. Zitman
Guardino v. Montgomery County
These cases ended before factual development.
2. Medium‑Duration Cases (6–18 months)
These cases often involve:
Immunity briefing
Amended complaints
Partial dismissals
Examples:
Bible‑Marshall v. Montgomery County
Petersen v. Montgomery County
Burchfield v. Baldobino
Paz v. Hayden
Galynsky v. Thomas
Guillory v. Henderson
3. Long‑Duration Cases (2–4 years)
Longer cases typically involve:
Monell claims
Complex factual disputes
Multi‑defendant litigation
Appeals
Examples:
Dobbs v. Montgomery County
Gann v. Montgomery County
Herridge v. Montgomery County
Mosti v. Montgomery County
Muniz v. Montgomery County Sheriff Department (ongoing)
Litigation Themes
Across more than a decade of cases, several themes appear:
Qualified Immunity
Frequently raised at the earliest stage of litigation, often resulting in dismissal before discovery.
Sovereign Immunity
Used to challenge claims against the County or county departments.
Monell Liability
Appears in many cases involving allegations of:
Failure to train
Failure to supervise
Unconstitutional policies
Ratification by county leadership
Jail & Mental‑Health Issues
Numerous cases involve:
Jail medical care
Mental‑health treatment
Suicide prevention
Use of force in detention settings
Repeat Institutional Defendants
Common defendants include:
Montgomery County
Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office
Montgomery County Jail
Community Supervision & Corrections Department
Individual deputies and jailers
Why This Profile Matters
This page exists to:
Provide public transparency
Document patterns in civil‑rights litigation
Help residents understand how immunity doctrines affect accountability
Support community oversight of county legal practices
Justice Guard does not draw conclusions about guilt or innocence. We present public records so the community can make informed judgments.
Submit a Case or Tip
If you have information about a civil‑rights case involving Montgomery County:
Contact Justice Guard Submit a case number Share your experience
Your information helps strengthen transparency and accountability.
Stay updated on our news and events! Sign up to receive our newsletter.
