Adams v. Laredo
| Decision Date | 19 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. L-08-165 |
| Parties | ROBERTO ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Roberto Adams has sued the City of Laredo alleging that Laredo police officers used excessive force when they arrested him, violating his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. On August 30, 2010, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 24.) Adams responded, the City replied, and Adams filed a surreply. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 27, 28.) Having considered the evidence, the applicable law, and the parties' respective arguments, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The incident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on January 15, 2007.1 That afternoon, Adams stopped by a veterinarian's office in Laredo, Texas, to check on test resultshe needed for his job with the Texas Animal Health Commission. (Dkt. 26, Attach. 1, at 2.) He left the office in his state issued pickup truck. (Id. at 3.) As he was driving, Adams began to suffer from acute hypoglycemia, also known as diabetic shock. The hypoglycemia caused Adams to blackout. (Id.) He remembers leaving the vet's office and turning right onto McPherson Avenue, but remembers nothing between that point and when he was later forcibly removed from his vehicle by Laredo police officers. (Dkt. 25, Attach. 3, at 8-10.)
Defendant submitted the written police statement of Jacqueline Gonzalez, who claimed that she was driving south on McPherson when a white pickup truck (Adams) began following very close to her rear bumper. (Dkt. 24, Attach. 1, at 2.) She stated that the truck almost rear-ended her vehicle twice, which prompted her to call the Police Department and report the incident. (Id.) Gonzalez claimed that she had turned off McPherson and circled back around the block when she saw the truck hit a vehicle at the corner of McPherson and San Jose. (Id.) She stated that after the accident, the truck drove off, narrowly missing other vehicles parked on the side of the road. (Id.)
At some point, presumably in response to Gonzalez's call, police dispatch issued a "lookout" for Adams's vehicle. (Dkt. 24, Attach. 21, at 5.) Laredo police officer Mario Bernal was onpatrol in the area when he saw a white truck matching the description run a stop sign at the intersection of San Jose and Springfield. (Id. at 5-6.) Bernal turned on his lights and siren and began pursuit. (Id. at 6.) Adams, however, kept on driving. (Id.) He continued down San Jose for six or seven blocks until he crashed into a metal barrier near the intersection of San Jose and San Francisco. (Id.) Officer Bernal exited his vehicle and approached the driver's side of the truck, yelling for Adams to turn off the vehicle and get out. (Id.)
In the meantime, officers Juan Rodriguez and Jacqueline Siegfried arrived at the scene.2 (Id.) As officer Rodriguez approached the truck, he noticed its reverse lights switch on. (Dkt. 24, Attach. 20, at 18.) He ran up to the driver's side door and began hitting the window with his hand and yelling for Adams to get out of the truck. (Id.) Rodriguez testified that Adams did not respond, but rather sat in the vehicle looking forward with his hands on the steering wheel. (Id.) At that point, Rodriguez believed that his only option to get Adams out of the truck was to break the driver's side window. (Id.) He hit the window twice with his flashlight, but the window did not break. (Id.)
Shortly after Rodriguez hit the window, Adams accelerated in reverse. (Id. at 19.) By then, officers Siegfried and Bernal were standing behind the truck and were forced to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. (Dkt. 25, Attach. 1, at 6-7.) Adams put the truck back into drive and proceeded south on San Francisco. (Dkt. 24, Attach. 20, at 19.) The officers ran back to their vehicles and continued the chase. (Id.)
Adams turned left on Montgomery, and right on Barcelona, reaching speeds of sixty to sixty-five miles per hour.3 (Id. at 20; Dkt. 25, Attach. 1, at 8.) As he was driving south on Barcelona, Adams almost had a head-on collision with Officer Juan Cardenas, who was traveling in the opposite direction. (Dkt. 24, Attach. 20, at 20; Dkt. 25, Attach. 2, at 5.) Adams continued through the intersection of Barcelona and Lyons, jumped a curb and sidewalk, and then went down the embankment that borders Zacate creek. (Dkt. 24, Attach. 20, at 20.)
When the officers reached the scene, the truck was stuck in a muddy area next to the creek. (Dkt. 25, Attach. 1, at 8.) Adams was still attempting to maneuver the vehicle, causing the wheels to spin and the truck to slide back and forth. (Dkt. 25, Attach. 2, at 6.) Eventually, officer Cardenas used his metal baton to break the driver's side window. (Id. at 6.)
At this point, Adams apparently recovered from his blackout. He claims to remember the window breaking and the events that followed. (Dkt. 25, Attach. 3, at 10.) However, his version of the facts, and that of the City, differ significantly.
According to the City, after the window was broken, officer Rodriguez opened the driver's side door and attempted to pull Adams out of the truck. (Dkt. 24, at 10-11.) Adams resisted by gripping the steering wheel, but Rodriguez, with the help of officer De La Garza, managed to pull him out. (Dkt. 26 Attach. 9, at 6.) The officers forced Adams to the ground; he landed on his back and moaned as though he may have been hurt. (Dkt. 24, at 11; Dkt. 24, Attach. 20, at 30.) They turned Adams onto his stomach to put handcuffs on, but Adams again resisted, keeping his arms underneath his body with his hands pulled up against his chest. (Dkt. 24, at 11.) Eventually, the officers managed to get Adams's arms free and apply the handcuffs. (Id.) Rodriguez lifted Adams up off the ground and he and Bernal escorted him to Rodriguez's police vehicle. (Id.) They patted him down and put him in the backseat. (Id.)
According to Adams, as soon as he was pulled from the truck he felt a "big blow to [his] head and [he] went down." (Dkt. 26, Attach. 1, at 3.) He fell face up, but the officers turned him over and pulled his arms back to handcuff him. (Id.) He couldnot move or communicate, but in no way resisted the officers, who were cursing at him and calling him names. (Id.) The officers began hitting and kicking Adams as he laid on the ground helpless, in a nonadversarial position. (Dkt. 8, at 3.) He felt blows to his head, back, and legs, more than twenty in all. (Dkt. 26, Attach. 1, at 3.) He testified that when the officers stopped beating him, he was dragged through the mud to Rodriguez's police car, patted down, and placed in the backseat.4 (Id.)
The parties agree that officer Rodriguez drove Adams to the hospital shortly after he was arrested.5 (Dkt. 24, Attach. 20, at 33; Dkt. 26, Attach. 1, at 3.) When they arrived, Adams was confused; he asked Rodriguez where he was and why he was there. (Dkt. 25, Attach. 3, at 15-16.) Rodriguez told Adams they were at the hospital and asked if he was aware of what had happened. (Id.) When Adams said "no," Rodriguez asked Adams if he was a diabetic. (Id. at 16.) Adams responded that he was, and Rodriguez said nothing else. (Id.) They went into the hospital and Adams was evaluated and treated for hypoglycemia. A doctorlater informed Adams that his blood sugar levels had been so low that he had almost died, but that his levels were back up again and that "hopefully [he was] going to be okay." (Dkt. 26, Attach. 1, at 3.) Adams was initially charged with evading arrest, but that charge was later dropped. (Dkt. 26, Attach. 8, at 6.)
Adams filed suit on December 22, 2008, originally naming as defendants the City, the Mayor, the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the former Chief of Police, and four of the officers involved in the arrest. (Dkt. 1, at 1-2.) On September 8, 2009, Adams filed an amended complaint dropping all defendants except the City. (Dkt. 8.)
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A fact is 'material' if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law." Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex. , 560 F.3d 316, 326 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hamilton v. Segue Software, Inc., 232 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2000)). "An issue is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting Hamilton, 232 F.3d at 477). In determining whethera fact issue exists, the Court views "the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Reaves Brokerage Co. v. Sunbelt Fruit & Vegetable Co., 336 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2003).
The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine fact issue. Condrey v. Sun Trust Bank of Ga. , 429 F.3d 556, 562 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). Where the burden of proof at trial rests on the nonmovant, the movant may satisfy its initial burden by "pointing out to the district court . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; see also Cuadra v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. , 626 F.3d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 2010). "Once the moving party has demonstrated the absence of a material fact issue, the non-moving party must 'go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)). This burden is not satisfied with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or by establishing "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Id. (quoting Little, 37 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial