Aguirre v. City of San Antonio

Decision Date22 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 17-51031,17-51031
Parties Estate of Jesse AGUIRRE, Deceased; Blanca Aguirre, Individually and as Next Friend of Jesse Aguirre, Jr., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; Officer Cristina Gonzales; Officer Roberto Mendez; Officer Jennifer Morgan; Officer Bettina Arredondo; Officer Benito Juarez, Defendants—Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Edward Leonard Pina, Matthew Gossen, Edward L. Pina & Associates, P.C, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs - Appellants.

Nathan Mark Ralls, Hoblit Darling Ralls Hernandez & Hudlow, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants - Appellees.

Before Jolly, Dennis, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge* :

The family of Jesse Aguirre (the Plaintiffs) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging that officers of the San Antonio Police Department violated Aguirre's constitutional rights by causing his death through the use of excessive force—specifically, by contorting and holding his body in a prone, hog-tie-like, "maximal-restraint position" during his arrest, leading to his dying from asphyxiation

. Aguirre's family claimed that five of the officers killed Aguirre by holding him face down on pavement with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs restrained, bent at the knees, and crossed against his buttocks, for approximately five-and-a-half minutes, during which time Aguirre stopped breathing. They further asserted claims of deliberate indifference against the individual officers, as well as claims that the City of San Antonio was liable for failing to train its officers not to hold or bind arrestees in hog-tie-like positions conducive to asphyxiation. The district court granted summary judgment to the individual police officers (Officers or Defendant Officers), concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and to the city of San Antonio on the ground that the Plaintiffs had not established a city policy or custom that was the moving force behind the Officers’ actions. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse summary judgment for the Defendant Officers as to the excessive force claims, affirm as to the district court's other rulings, and remand the case for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In reviewing an appeal from summary judgment, we "view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor." See Deville v. Marcantel , 567 F.3d 156, 163–64 (5th Cir. 2009). The evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving Plaintiffs, establishes the following:

In the early evening of April 12, 2013, the San Antonio Police Department received complaints from motorists that a man who appeared mentally disturbed, later identified as Jesse Aguirre, was walking and waving his hands near the narrow median of Highway 90. Highway 90 is a heavily traveled eight-lane expressway with a three-foot high cement median barrier separating its four eastbound lanes from its four westbound lanes. The first four Defendant Officers that responded to the complaints—Cristina Gonzales, Roberto Mendez, Jennifer Morgan, and Bettina Arredondo—arrived in separate vehicles on the eastbound side of the expressway opposite where Aguirre was walking eastward near the median on the westbound side.

What occurred next is documented by the videos taken by dashboard cameras in the Officers’ vehicles,1 which they left parked near the median on the eastbound side of the expressway. The videos were introduced by the Plaintiffs in opposition to defendantsmotions for summary judgment.

Officer Gonzales was the first to arrive. She left her vehicle blocking the left-most eastbound lane and approached Aguirre on foot with her firearm pointed at him, ordering him to "come here" and threatening, "I'm going to shoot you, m-----r-f----r." When Aguirre did not acknowledge the command and continued to walk, Gonzales stepped over the median and followed him. Soon thereafter, Officer Morgan, pointing her gun, and Officer Mendez, pointing his taser, also approached Aguirre along the eastbound side. Aguirre then stopped, bent forward, and placed his hands on the median; Officer Gonzalez rushed forward, grabbed Aguirre's arms, and handcuffed Aguirre's hands behind him while he remained bending over the median. According to the video evidence, Aguirre did not visibly resist being handcuffed. While handcuffing Aguirre, the Officers noticed that he had fresh needle marks on his arms, indicating that he had recently used intravenous drugs.

The three Officers then pulled Aguirre over the median barrier, causing him to land on his head on the eastbound side of the expressway. The three Officers had blocked the two left-most eastbound lanes with their cars, preventing traffic from accessing the area where they held Aguirre. The Officers patted Aguirre down, finding no weapon, pulled him to his feet, walked him over to the front of Officer Mendez's car, and bent him over the hood face down with his hands cuffed behind him.

After one or two more officers arrived, they assisted in moving Aguirre from the car hood to the ground onto his stomach next to the median with his hands still cuffed behind him. The video does not show that Aguirre resisted during this maneuver, but instead that he stumbled with the Officers toward the median. After Aguirre was placed prone on his stomach, Officer Gonzales pushed his legs up and crossed them near his buttocks and kneeled forward on Aguirre's legs, holding them near Aguirre's bound hands in a hog-tie-like position. Officer Mendez knelt with one knee on the ground and the other on Aguirre's back, later changing position to hold Aguirre's shoulders and cheek down against the pavement with his hands. Officer Mendez testified that he was using part of his body weight to hold Aguirre down, thus applying pressure to Aguirre's back and neck. Officers Morgan and Arredondo then joined Gonzales and Mendez, placing their hands on Aguirre's arms and back to hold him prone in the maximal-restraint position. Several more officers arrived, and, with Aguirre still being held in that position, the group of officers milled around near where Aguirre was being held, speaking to each other and into their radios. Officer Benito Juarez, a medical tech officer, arrived after Aguirre had been placed in the prone maximal-restraint position, but the record does not disclose that Juarez offered any advice or assistance to the other Officers about the manner in which Aguirre was being held. Officer Arredondo observed that Aguirre's lips turned blue while he was held in the prone maximal-restraint position, and she thought it was the result of drugs he had taken. At some point during the Officers handling of Aguirre, they called for a police "wagon" to transport him.

The Officers held Aguirre in the prone maximal-restraint position for approximately five-and-a-half minutes, and during this time Aguirre stopped breathing. After the five-and-a-half minutes had elapsed, the Officers noticed that Aguirre was no longer breathing or responsive, and they turned him over on his back and removed the handcuffs. Juarez jogged to the trunk of his car to retrieve his medical equipment. At this point, the Officers appear to be in good spirits; according to the Plaintiffs, in the dashcam videos, Juarez can be seen smiling as he jogs to his vehicle, and several other Officers likewise appear to be smiling and laughing as they await Juarez's return around Aguirre's body. Juarez returned at a walk with his medical bag approximately one minute after he left. Aguirre remained unresponsive, leading Mendez to perform a "sternum rub"2 in an unsuccessful attempt to rouse him. When this and similar techniques proved unavailing, Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") was contacted and one of the Officers began to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation

("CPR"), but she stopped after about twenty seconds. Eventually, four minutes and thirty-eight seconds after Aguirre was turned over, Juarez began administering CPR in earnest. Juarez and other Officers continued to perform CPR on Aguirre until EMS arrived, and, the video shows the Officers’ body language and demeanor had changed by this time, becoming more serious and no longer smiling or laughing. The Officers were ultimately unsuccessful at reviving Aguirre. A subsequent autopsy report concluded that the position in which the Officers had placed Aguirre had caused him to asphyxiate, stating that "[d]ue to the restraint by police, this case is classified as a homicide."

The Plaintiffs’ medical expert, Dr. Brant Mittler—who reviewed, among other materials, several medical examiner reports; photographs; and autopsies; as well as the Officers’ statements; statements by Aguirre's girlfriend and the officer who interviewed the Officers following the incident; and the dash cam videos—opined about the known dangers of the position in which the Officers had placed Aguirre. The position "involved pressure to ... Aguirre's back and to his neck and his legs were pulled up backwards in the prone position.... over the course of over 5 minutes." According to Dr. Mittler, this positioning (1) "restricted ... Aguirre's ability to expand his lungs and oxygenate his blood and importantly remove carbon dioxide and maintain a normal PH of his blood," (2) "reduced venous return to the heart and reduced his cardiac output," (3) "compressed his vena cava," (4) "contributed to a lowered blood PH which contributed to ... Aguirre's death via inducement of a fatal cardiac arrhythmia

," (5) induced extreme anxiety and stimulated more catecholamine production which contributed to ... Aguirre's death," and (6) affected ... Aguirre's ability to breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide." Moreover, presumably relying of Aguirre's autopsy, Dr. Mittler noted that, "Aguirre had cocaine in his system at the time of his death," which can "increase oxygen demand and muscle...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Parsons v. Velasquez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • July 30, 2021
    ...proscribed," and that the officer would "have no recourse to qualified immunity." Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 403-04, 424 (5th Cir. 2020) (Jolly, J., concurring). The Fifth Circuit has further cited Taylor to support its assertion that " ‘in an obvious case,’ general stand......
  • Ortiz v. New Mexico
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • July 22, 2021
    ...proscribed," and that the officer would "have no recourse to qualified immunity." Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 403-04, 424 (5th Cir. 2020) (Jolly, J., concurring). The Fifth Circuit has further cited Taylor to support its assertion that " ‘in an obvious case,’ general stand......
  • Polnac v. City of Sulphur Springs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • August 18, 2021
    ...provides protections against an officer's use of excessive force to effect an arrest or other seizure." Aguirre v. City of San Antonio , 995 F.3d 395, 406 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Graham , 490 U.S. at 389, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865 ). "To prevail on an excessive-force claim, [Plaintiff] must show ......
  • Hunter v. City of Houston
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • September 29, 2021
    ...(emphasis in original). On summary judgment, analysis of qualified immunity proceeds on two prongs. See Aguirre v. City of San Antonio , 995 F.3d 395, 406 (5th Cir. 2021) ; see also Batyukova v. Doege , 994 F.3d 717, 724–25 (5th Cir. 2021). A court must first ask "whether the facts, taken i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...to qualif‌ied immunity when reasonable off‌icer would know conduct in sexually invasive search unlawful); Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 416 (5th Cir. 2021) (off‌icers not entitled to qualif‌ied immunity when applying “unnecessary, injurious force against a restrained individ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT