Baker v. Juventino Castro, the City of Houston, Rpi Mgmt. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-3495 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF JORDAN BAKER, by and through Administrator, JANET BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JUVENTINO CASTRO, THE CITY OF HOUSTON, RPI MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and RPI INTERESTS I, LTD., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Pending before the court1 is Defendant Juventino Castro's ("Defendant Castro") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 107) and Defendant City of Houston's ("Defendant City") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 112). The court has considered the motions, the responses, all other relevant filings, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Castro's motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and that Defendant City's motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff Estate of Jordan Baker ("Plaintiff") filed this civil-rights action against multiple defendants, includingDefendants Castro and City (jointly the "Defendants"), alleging violations of Decedent Jordan Baker's ("Decedent") constitutional rights as well as state law claims in connection with a police stop, attempted arrest, and lethal shooting that occurred after Decedent rode his bicycle through the parking lot of a strip mall.2
Defendant Castro is a Houston Police Department ("HPD") officer assigned to the Narcotics Division.4 Decedent is a black male who was twenty-six years old at the time of his death.5 Decedent is survived by his son, J.B., and his mother, Janet Baker, who is the administrator of Decedent's estate.6
On January 13, 2015, Defendant Castro began working an HPD-approved extra job providing security at a strip mall located at 5700 West Little York, Houston, TX (the "Strip Mall").7 There weremore than forty armed robberies in the immediate surrounding area within the prior six weeks.8 At least five of these robberies had occurred at the Strip Mall.9 A total of eight armed robberies occurred in the area surrounding the Strip Mall on January 14 and 15, 2015, alone.10 Most, if not all, of the armed robberies had been committed by a suspect described as a black male wearing a hoodie and armed with a handgun.11 The armed robberies generally occurred between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.12
On January 16, 2015, Defendant Castro was working his extra job at the Strip Mall.13 There had already been an armed robberyin the area while Defendant Castro was working at the Strip Mall that day.14 At approximately 8:40 p.m., Decedent rode his bicycle into the parking lot of the Strip Mall.15 Decedent was wearing a hoodie, but it is unclear whether the hoodie was pulled over Decedent's head while he was riding his bike.16 Defendant Castro was in full police uniform and was sitting in his white Chrysler 300 in the parking lot of the Strip Mall.17
Decedent rode his bicycle in a straight line through the parking lot towards Defendant Castro's vehicle.18 As Decedent approached Defendant Castro he suddenly noticed Defendant Castro, in full police uniform, sitting inside his vehicle with the lights on and windows rolled down.19 Decedent appeared surprised to see Defendant Castro and immediately turned around and began pedalingat a high rate of speed in the other direction.20 Defendant Castro initiated a stop of Decedent shortly after Decedent pedaled away.21
The facts occurring immediately before the stop are in dispute. In Plaintiff's version of the facts, Defendant Castro decided to stop Plaintiff immediately after Decedent turned in the other direction.22 Defendant Castro then nearly pinned Decedent against a hedge on the perimeter of the parking lot with his car in order to stop him.23 This caused Decedent to be knocked off of his bike.24
In Defendants' version of the facts, Defendant Castro attempted to drive by Decedent and talk to him before initiating a stop.25 Then, after Decedent repeatedly ignored Defendant Castro, Defendant Castro decided to initiate the stop.26 Defendant Castroeventually asked Decedent to stop and speak with him.27 Decedent then stopped his bicycle with his hands on the bicycle's handlebars.28
The facts of what occurred after the stop are also contested. Under Defendants' version of events, Decedent was very belligerent towards Defendant Castro and repeatedly stated that he was not going to jail.29 Decedent continually fidgeted with his pockets which caused Defendant Castro to draw his weapon out of a concern that Decedent possessed a weapon and was reaching for it.30 Defendant Castro then instructed Decedent to get on the ground and Decedent initially complied.31 However, when Defendant Castro attempted to handcuff Decedent, Decedent jumped to his feet and rammed his shoulder or elbow into Defendant Castro's chest and began to run back toward the Strip Mall.32 Defendant Castro was able to get a hold of Decedent's hoodie, but Decedent squirmed outof the hoodie and kept running.33 Decedent then stopped and was again given commands to get down.34 This time, Decedent did not comply and took off again towards the Strip Mall with Defendant Castro in pursuit.35 Decedent ran past the Strip Mall and towards a nearby bayou, then stopped and turned around to face Defendant Castro who had again drawn his weapon.36 Decedent then ran towards Defendant Castro in a crouch and began digging at his waistband.37 Fearing for his life, Defendant Castro fired a shot at Decedent and hit him center mass.38 Decedent turned directions and began running alongside the back of the Strip Mall.39 Decedent did not make it far before falling face down.40 Defendant Castro then handcuffed Decedent and searched him for weapons before calling for anambulance.41 Decedent died shortly thereafter.42
Under Plaintiff's version of events, Defendant Castro pulled his weapon on Decedent after there was a brief discussion following the stop.43 Decedent then tried to run away and Defendant Castro grabbed Decedent's hoodie, which Decedent was able to unzip and remove.44 Decedent walked away from Defendant Castro with his back turned to him.45 Decedent eventually turned to face Defendant Castro while continuing to back away slowly.46 Shortly thereafter, Decedent turned and ran behind the Strip Mall.47 Defendant Castro headed back towards his vehicle, stopped, and then chased after Decedent.48 Decedent tripped, allowing Defendant Castro to catch up to him.49 Decedent got up and started running away fromDefendant Castro again, but Defendant Castro shot Decedent.50 Decedent kept moving away from Defendant Castro before collapsing.51 Defendant Castro then handcuffed Decedent and did not administer any medical aid to Decedent.52 Defendant Castro also did not check Decedent's pulse as he had been trained to do.53 Decedent remained conscious after being shot for up to two minutes.54 Plaintiff contends that the only aggressive action Decedent took during the entire incident was to yell loudly at Defendant Castro.55 Due to the numerous injuries found on Decedent that are inconsistent with having been inflicted by the gunshot alone, Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Castro used excessive non-lethal force against Decedent during the events leading up to the shooting.56
It is undisputed that Decedent was unarmed and was not inpossession of any contraband at the time of the incident.57
Following the shooting, the first person with whom Defendant Castro spoke was his attorney.58 After Defendant Castro met with his attorney, the Harris County District Attorney's Office formed a circle of approximately fifteen to twenty people referred to as the "shoot team".59 Defendant Castro and his attorney then joined the "shoot team" circle, which included important members of the HPD and the HPD's homicide and crime scene units.60 Upon joining the "shoot team" circle, Defendant Castro did a "walk-through" of the crime scene.61 The "walk-through" consisted of Defendant Castro's walking through the scene and explaining where certain things had happened.62 Later that same night, Defendant Castro went to the HPD office and, with his attorney present, typed and signeda sworn statement of his encounter with Decedent.63
Following the incident, the Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") conducted an investigation of the shooting.64 As part of the investigation, Defendant Castro was given forty-eight hours to answer a set of written questions.65 Defendant Castro was never required to undergo a live interview regarding the incident.66 The IAD determined that Defendant Castro's shooting of Decedent was "intentional" and "justified."67
According to Matthew May, a police officer in the IAD, when the IAD investigates a shooting, the shootings are deemed either accidental or intentional, and either justified or not justified.68 Other types of use of force incidents have additional more nuancedclassifications.69 A justified shooting means that the IAD has determined that the shooting met the criteria of the HPD policies and procedures.70 The IAD does not look at the history, if any, of complaints against an officer being investigated when determining whether a shooting was justified or not.71 The IAD investigation moves up the chain of command to the chief of police, who alone makes a final determination on whether or not discipline will be issued.72
Following a shooting by an HPD officer, like in the present case, the officer is allowed to do a "walk-through" of the scene to explain what happened.73 The officer is accompanied by his or her attorney during the "walk-through" and the "walk-through" is not recorded.74 The "walk-through" is a matter of unwritten custom as there are no written protocols or procedures regarding the "walk-through".75
It is HPD...
To continue reading
Request your trial