Arita v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-cv-00288 |
| Citation | 470 F.Supp.3d 663 |
| Parties | Orlanda del Carmen PEÑA ARITA, individually and as next friend of D.M.A. and C.M.A. and as representative of the Estate of Marco Antonio Muñoz, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America; Alvaro A. Guajardo-Martinez, in individual capacity ; Christopher R. Garza, in individual capacity ; Abram Lerma, in individual capacity ; Jorge Flores, in individual capacity ; Unknown United States Customs and Border Protection Agents; County of Starr, Texas; Rene "Orta" Fuentes, in official capacity ; Hector Lopez III, in official and individual capacity; Crecencio Galvan, in official and individual capacity; Evelario Garza, in official and individual capacity; Clyde Guerra, in official and individual capacity; Alex Garcia, in official and individual capacity; Sammy Marroquin, in official and individual capacity; Raul Garcia, in official and individual capacity; and Unknown Starr County Detention Officers, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Andrew George Udelsman, Erin D. Thorn, Ricardo Amado Garza, Efren Carlos Olivares, Texas Civil Rights Project, Alamo, TX, Daniel E. Vargas, The Vargas Law Office, Edinburg, TX, John Gregory Escamilla, Escamilla Law Firm, McAllen, TX, Zachary David Dolling, Texas Civil Rights Project, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Robert S. Davis, Flowers Davis PLLC, Tyler, TX, for Defendants.
Micaela Alvarez, United States District Judge The Court now considers 29 briefs: "Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss All Claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint Against Defendant United States of America;"1 Plaintiffs’ response;2 and the United States’ reply;3 the "Individual Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss" filed on behalf of Border Patrol Defendants Alvaro A. Guajardo-Martinez, Christopher R. Garza, Abram Lerma, and Jorge Flores;4 Plaintiffs’ response;5 and Border Patrol agents’ reply6 and supplemental authority;7 the seriatim motions to dismiss filed by Starr County and the Starr County Sheriff and Starr County Jail employees;8 Plaintiffs’ responses;9 and Defendants Sammy Marroquin's and Raul Garcia's reply;10 the "Opposed Motion to Stay Discovery and Disclosure" filed on behalf of Defendants Starr County, Rene "Orta" Fuentes, Hector Lopez, Evelario Garza, Crecencio Galvan, Clyde Guerra, and Alex Garcia;11 Plaintiffs’ response;12 and Border Patrol Defendants’ opposition to discovery;13 and "Plaintiff's [sic] Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint,"14 Defendants’ responses;15 Plaintiffs’ reply;16 Plaintiffs’ supplemental "Advisory to the Court" of supporting facts,17 and certain Defendants’ response to the advisory.18 In summary, Defendants move to dismiss the operative Second Amended Complaint, Defendants move to stay discovery, and Plaintiffs want to file a Third Amended Complaint which Defendants oppose. After considering the motions, record, and relevant authorities, the Court GRANTS all motions to dismiss, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to stay discovery.
This is a civil rights lawsuit arising out of a jail suicide on May 13, 2018.19 This case commenced with an original complaint on August 18, 2019.20 Plaintiffs amended as a matter of course on September 4, 2019, to add Defendants.21 Plaintiffs sought further leave to amend to cure admitted defects in the First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2019, before any Defendant had filed a responsive pleading, which this Court granted on October 10th.22 Plaintiffs’ "Second Amended Complaint" is therefore the live pleading,23 and the Court will draw all background facts as alleged from that complaint.
This case arises from the tragic suicide of Marco Antonio Muñoz while he was detained at the Starr County Jail. In April 2018, then-United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions implemented zero tolerance and family separation policies for individuals detained under suspicion of committing an illegal entry offense24 at the United States’ southwestern international land border.25 Around April and May 2018, husband and wife Marco Antonio Muñoz and Plaintiff Orlanda del Carmen Peña Arita and their 3-year-old son D.M.A. left their coffee farm in Honduras, after circumstances indicated that Mr. Muñoz's brother-in-law was killed for political reasons. The family traveled to the United States’ international border with Mexico near Granjeno, Texas, where they crossed the border and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents promptly took them into custody on May 11, 2018.26 Mr. Muñoz requested medical aid for blisters on his feet, but at no time did CBP agents cause medical aid to be provided.27 CBP separated Mr. Muñoz from his family despite his "distraught" behavior.28 CBP initially placed Mr. Muñoz in the McAllen Processing Center, but eventually took him to the Starr County Jail, during which Mr. Muñoz damaged the transportation vehicle by kicking the interior.29 CBP agents transferred custody of Mr. Muñoz to "Starr County detention officers," who Mr. Muñoz physically battled, and Starr County jailers placed Mr. Muñoz in a padded cell in the Starr County Jail.30 Plaintiffs allege that authorities should have sought medical or psychiatric care for Mr. Muñoz and that jailers should have been checking on Mr. Muñoz, but failed to do so.31 While in the Starr County Jail, Mr. Muñoz improvised a long-sleeved article of clothing32 into a noose by tying both sleeves to a floor grate, then inserting his head into the loop and twisting his body until the sleeves tightened and ultimately asphyxiated Mr. Muñoz, killing him on the morning of May 13, 2018.33 Plaintiffs bring causes of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States,34 a Bivens claim against all CBP agents in their individual capacities,35 a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Starr County and its Sheriff in official capacities and against Starr County employees in their individual and official capacities, and a claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act36 and the Rehabilitation Act37 against Starr County in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.38
This Court held an initial pretrial and scheduling conference on February 25, 2020.39 The Court granted until March 26, 2020, to complete service of process on two outstanding Defendants.40 The Court also "indicated it will assess whether limited discovery on the issue of qualified immunity is necessary after ruling on the motions to dismiss."41 The various motions are ripe for consideration.
This Court must satisfy its Article III jurisdiction over this case.42 This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, 1402. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 124(b)(7).
The Court notes that some briefs lack numbered paragraphs entirely, hindering the Court's reference to certain arguments. The Court cautions all parties that submissions must consistently number each paragraph to properly comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.43
The Court first turns to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend44 because such will determine the operative allegations to assess whether Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ chief objective with the amended complaint is to "remove claims against Starr County jailers in their official capacity only, and add factual allegations detailing the actions and omissions of the individual defendants in this lawsuit."45 However, because Plaintiffs admit that whether the Court should grant leave to amend partly turns on whether Plaintiffs have stated valid claims in the Second Amended Complaint,46 the Court considers the briefs on the motions to dismiss together with Plaintiffs’ motion to amend.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits motions to dismiss for "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." "Under Rule 12(b)(1), a claim is ‘properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate’ the claim,"47 because federal courts only have jurisdiction to decide controversies as conferred by the United States Constitution or by statute.48 Motions under Rule 12(b)(1) are to be considered first, before addressing any attack on the merits,49 because while the Court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction,50 it cannot exercise any "judicial action" other than dismissal when the Court lacks jurisdiction.51 If any party attacks the Court's jurisdiction, "the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof on a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss."52 In assessing the Court's jurisdiction, "the district court is to accept as true the allegations and facts set forth in the complaint,"53 and may "dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts."54 Accordingly, the Court may consider evidence outside the pleadings to determine subject matter jurisdiction.55 Ultimately, "[a] motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief."56
As for Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend the complaint, after amending a pleading once as a matter of course,57 "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave."58 Plaintiffs admit that they have already twice amended their complaint,59 so the instant motion to amend requires the Court's leave. "Leave to amend is in no way automatic, but the district court must possess a substantial reason to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duran v. El Paso Police Dep't
...to serious medical needs by deliberate indifference under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Peña Arita v. United States, 470 F.Supp.3d 663, 701 (S.D. Tex. 2020). "Broken bones and bleeding cuts are serious medical needs that require medical attention within hours." White v......
-
Perry v. People
... ... PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-838-ALM-KPJ United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division August 9, 2022 ... ... favorable to the plaintiff. See Pena Arita v. United ... States , 470 F.Supp.3d 663, 680 (S.D. Tex. 2020); ... Baker v. Putnal , ... ...
-
Hardaway v. Toyota Fin. Servs.
... ... Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-194-KPJUnited States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman DivisionFebruary 2, 2022 ... RANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ... KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ... Pending ... before the Court are Defendants Toyota ... most favorable to the plaintiff. Pena Arita v. United ... States, 470 F.Supp.3d 663, 680 (S.D. Tex. 2020); see ... Baker v. Putnal, ... ...
-
Duran v. Morton
...right not to be denied attention to medical needs by deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment. Peña Arita v. United States, 470 F.Supp.3d 663, 701 (S.D. Tex. 2020). "To prove deliberate indifference, a pretrial detainee must show that the state official [1] knew of and [2] dis......