Brizuela v. City of Sparks
| Docket Number | 3:19-cv-00692-MMD-VPC |
| Decision Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Parties | ROSA ESTER BRIZUELA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SPARKS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
On July 17, 2018, two Sparks Police Department officers shot and killed Rolando Brizuela in the enclosed patio of his home. This action is brought by Plaintiffs Rosa Brizuela, both as the administrator of Mr. Brizuela's estate and in her individual capacity as his wife, and by Roland Brizuela and Morgan Brizuela, in their individual capacities as his sons. Plaintiffs collectively bring 12 claims against Defendants City of Sparks and Sparks Police Department officers Brian Sullivan and Eli Maile. Before the Court are three motions Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 82),[1]Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 87),[2] and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 91).[3] As explained further below, the Court will deny Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 82), grant Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 87), and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 91).
Mr. Brizuela's wife and sons now assert claims on his behalf and in their individual capacities. Relevant to the disposition of those claims are the events of the evening in question, the Officers' training, and the City's policies, which the Court sets forth here. The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Sparks Police Department (“SPD”) issues General Orders to document its policies by which its officers are bound to comply. Two of those General Orders are relevant to this litigation: General Order DM 7.1, which establishes guidelines for the Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”), and General Order DM 9.1, which governs SPD officers' use of force. (ECF Nos. 102-21, 102-22.)
DM 7.1 provides that some SPD officers will be specially trained “to handle incidents involving mentally ill persons and those in crisis with care and expertise, ensuring that such persons receive appropriate responses based on their needs.” (ECF No. 102-21 at 2.) These officers, known as CIT members, are “on-duty, uniformed Patrol Division Officers and Detectives, who have received specialized training and been certified in crisis intervention.” (Id.) DM 7.1 establishes guidelines and procedures for CIT members. (Id.) CIT officers are trained to “[i]nteract with persons who are mentally ill or in crisis . . . [d]e-escalate crisis events and mitigate potentially violent outcomes when possible . . . [and] [u]tilize the resources and services available to those with mental illness.” (Id.) DM 7.1 largely addresses situations in which dispatch is aware of a situation that would benefit from a CIT officer. (Id.) However, the policy applies in situations where “[c]ommunications receives a call for service meeting criteria for dispatch of CIT officer” and where “an officer goes to a call and determines that it meets the criteria to dispatch a CIT officer.” (Id.)
All SPD officers are governed by the same policy regarding use of deadly and non-deadly force as set forth in DM 9.1. (ECF No. 102-22.) Per section 9.1.01:
The use of deadly or non-deadly force is restricted to the purposes of self protection, the protection of others, to compel compliance with a lawful order, to prevent the escape of a dangerous offender, per Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) or to take an offender into custody.
(Id. at 2.) Officers are required to “use de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to higher levels of force consistent with his or her training wherever possible and appropriate before resorting to force and to reduce the need for force.” (Id. at 3.)
If an “officer involved shooting” occurs, the involved officer's supervisors will “respond in accordance with the Officer Involved Shooting Protocol.” (Id. at 11.) As part of the required response “the Internal Affairs Lieutenant will complete an administrative review of the officer involved shooting” after the completion of any criminal investigation. (Id.) The internal affairs review “will include background information about the shooting, an overview of the investigation and an analysis of applicable policies.” (Id.)
Both Defendant Officers were CIT members. Sullivan was trained in crisisintervention within the first two years of serving as an SPD officer. (ECF No. 93-7 at 4.) His training involved learning de-escalation techniques, including “using a calm voice,” “showing respect for the . . . potential arrestee,” and “trying techniques to reduce the anxiety of the arrestee.” (ECF No. 93-4 at 7.)
Maile was also crisis-intervention trained and completed a two 40+ hour courses on crisis intervention, an eight-hour course on “Calming Aggressive and Emotionally Disturbed Individuals,” and two hostage negotiation training courses. (ECF Nos. 93-22 at 3-7, 93-8 at 10.) Maile also states that prior to the incident on July 17, 2018, he had taken individuals for Legal 2000 holds-incidents in which police presence is requested to take a person for psychological evaluation-“probably over 50” times. (ECF No. 93-8 at 12.) Despite these official trainings and practical experience, Maile states that he was trained “very little” in recognizing the symptoms of mental illness. (Id. at 11.)
At the time of the incident, the Brizuelas lived at 1753 London Circle, Sparks, NV 89431 (the “Brizuela Residence” or the “home”). Mr. and Mrs. Brizuela had purchased the home on April 15, 2013. (ECF No. 93-14 at 2-3.) The home was also known as Lot 14 of Yorkshire Manor, a common-interest community. (Id. at 4.) Yorkshire Manor consists of 40 fourplexes comprising 160 individual lots that are arranged around three streets: York Way, Manchester Way, and London Circle. (ECF No. 93-15 at 2.) Of its fourplex, Lot 14 was the front-right unit facing London Circle. (Id.) Interspersed between the fourplexes are six defined common areas, lettered A through F. (Id. at 4.) Lot 14-the Brizuela Residence-was situated within common area A. (Id. at 2.)
Per the official plat, the common areas, roads, and driveways are “subject to a blanket easement for drainage and utilities installed for the benefit of this subdivision,” and are designated as “recreational, intended for use by the home owners of Yorkshire Manor for recreation and other related activities.” (Id.) The common areas are not, however, “for use by the general public, but are dedicated to the common use and enjoyment of the home owners of Yorkshire Manor as fully provided by the Declaration of Covenants, conditions, and restrictions applicable to Yorkshire Manor.” (Id.) The covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) grant an easement to each owner, stating, “Every owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot.” (ECF No. 93-18 at 3.
(Image Omitted)
The portion of common area A that is directly in front of the Brizuela Residence includes a grass lawn with a concrete walkway connecting the home to the sidewalk. (ECF No. 87-12 at 2.) To the left of the home's front door is an enclosed patio. (Id.) When the walkway reaches the edge of the patio, there is a step up that appears to be tiled with slate. (Id.) Approximately three feet beyond the initial step, there is a second slate-tiled step that leads to the front door of the home. (Id.) Perpendicular to and to the left of the front door is a wooden gate leading into the patio. (Id.) The patio is enclosed by a combination brick pony-wall and lattice fence. (Id.)
In their depositions, both Officers stated that they subjectively believed the walkway and the porch were part of the curtilage of the Brizuela Residence. (ECF Nos. 93-4 at 25, 93-8 at 23.)
The events giving rise to most claims occurred within a one-hour window on the evening of July 17, 2018, as relayed below.
At 8:40 p.m., Gabriella Guadron-Castillo reported a confrontation she had had with a neighbor to SPD and requested police response. (ECF No. 93-1 at 6.) Officer Brian Sullivan self-dispatched to meet with Guadron-Castillo at Sparks Middle School, as Guadron-Castillo reported she did not feel comfortable going into her house while the neighbor was watching her. (ECF Nos. 93-1 at 6, 93-2 at 1:25-5:38, 102-3 at 8.) When Sullivan arrived at Sparks Middle School, night was falling and the streetlights were on. (ECF No. 93-2 at 1:25-5:38.) Guadron-Castillo was waiting in her car with her young daughter. (Id.) She told Sullivan that when she had arrived at her house, her neighbor had been watching her in a way that scared her. (Id.) She further stated that she had seen her neighbor push a teenager off his skateboard, take the skateboard, and throw it inside his house. (Id. at 1:25-2:45.) She also told Sullivan that there had been an incident a few months ago at that neighbor's house that required police response, and the police had told her to stay inside because the neighbor had a gun. (Id. at 2:57-3:25.)
Sullivan asked if Guadron-Castillo wanted him to follow her home to make sure she arrived safely, and she agreed. (Id. at 3:38-3:42.) Guadron-Castillo asked if she should be concerned about the neighbor, and Sullivan said, “if all he's doing is staring at you, I would just ignore him.” (Id. at 3:42-3:53.) Guadron-Castillo explained she felt that the incident with the skateboarder was “just weird,” that the skateboarder was not “even a man” but “like a...
To continue reading
Request your trial