Burkett v. City of El Paso

• Decision Date: 14 March 2007
• Docket Number: No. EP 06 CA 0122 FM.,EP 06 CA 0122 FM.
• Citation: 513 F.Supp.2d 800
• Parties: William J. BURKETT, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF EL PASO, County of El Paso, Christopher Grijalva, Hugo Silex, Alfonso Nevarez, Jaime Esparza, and Chris Miller, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

513 F.Supp.2d 800

William J. BURKETT, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF EL PASO, County of El Paso, Christopher Grijalva, Hugo Silex, Alfonso Nevarez, Jaime Esparza, and Chris Miller, Defendants.

No. EP 06 CA 0122 FM.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

March 14, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sam Snoddy, Law Office, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff.

Joanne Bernal, First Assistant County Attorney, Maria Aurelia Salas-Mendoza, El Paso County Attorney's Office, Kitty Schild, El Paso, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

FRANK MONTALVO, District Judge.

On this day, the Court considered "Defendant Jaime Esparza, In his Individual Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule CV-12" ("Esparza's CV-12 Motion to Dismiss") [Rec. No. 22]; "Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Jaime Esparza, In his Individual Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule CV-12" ("Esparza CV-12 Response") [Rec. No. 41]; "Defendants' County of El Paso's and Jaime Esparza's, In his Official Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule CV-12, and Brief in Support Thereof, in Response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint" ("County's CV-12 Motion to Dismiss") [Rec. No. 23]; "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' County of El Paso's and Jaime Esparza's, In his Official Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule CV-12, and Brief in Support Thereof, in Response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint" ("County CV-12 Response") [Rec. No. 44]; "Defendants' County of El Paso and Jaime Esparza, In his Official Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6)" ("County's Motion to Dismiss") [Rec. No. 27]; "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' County of El Paso and Jaime Esparza, In his Official Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6)" ("County Response") [Rec. No. 36]; "Defendant Jaime Esparza's, In his Individual Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6)" ("Esparza's Motion to Dismiss") [Rec. No. 29]; "Plaintiffs Response to Defendant. Jaime Esparza, In his Individual Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6)" ("Esparza Response") [Rec. No. 38]; "Defendant Chris Miller's, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) and Local Rule CV-12" ("Miller's Motion to Dismiss") [Rec. No. 32]; "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Chris Miller's, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) and Local Rule CV-12" ("Miller Response") [Rec. No. 37]; and "Defendants' County of El Paso, Jaime Esparza, In his Official Capacity and Individual Capacity, and Chris Miller, In, his Official and Individual Capacity, Reply to Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) and CV-12" ("Reply") [Rec. No. 72] filed in the above-captioned cause. After carefully considering the motions, responses, replies, case file, and applicable law, the Court finds that it should GRANT the Motions to Dismiss.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Through the "First Amended Complaint of William J. Burkett, Application for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Injunctive Relief' [Rec. No, 13] ("Amended Complaint"), Plaintiff William J. Burkett ("Plaintiff') brings this action for relief for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also claims relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 and 1988, as well as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Defendants are the City of El Paso ("the City"), County of El Paso ("the County"), District Attorney Jaime Esparza ("Esparza"), Assistant District Attorney Chris Miller ("Miller"), and El Paso Police Officers Christopher Grijalva ("Grijalva"), Hugo Silex ("Silex"), and Alfonso Nevarez ("Nevarez").¹ Plaintiff also introduced a number of state claims against various defendants. Plaintiff additionally seeks a declaratory judgment holding the District Attorney Management System ("DIMS") agreement and manual illegal, unconstitutional, and void pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Further, Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a permanent injunction against the City, County, and Esparza.

A. Plaintiffs Factual Assertions

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was and still is employed by the El Paso County Constable Department as Constable for Precinct Number Seven. He contends that on April 4, 2004, Plaintiff and two other individuals were inside a vehicle departing the Stampede Bar when El Paso Police Department ("EPPD") officers approached them. The officers ordered Plaintiff and the passengers to exit the truck. The officers then instructed Plaintiff to place his hands on the truck and spread his legs. Plaintiff maintains he at all times complied and "did not do anything to cause the abuse inflicted."² Plaintiff alleges that Officer Grijalva deliberately kicked his inner right knee, causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. After regaining consciousness, Plaintiff alleges Officer Silex "stabbed [him] in the throat with a stinger light."³ Plaintiff was then transported to a local hospital where he received treatment for his injuries.

EPPD officers subsequently arrested Plaintiff for disorderly conduct and retaliation and transported him to the El Paso County Detention Facility. Chris Miller, the Assistant District Attorney on duty at the District Attorney's Information Management System ("DIMS")⁴ that night, accepted the case for prosecution on behalf of the El Paso County District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office charged Plaintiff with "Obstruct Retaliation Harm/Threat, 2nd Degree Felony" in the 41st Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas. State of Texas v. William Burkett, No. 20040D06395.⁵ Plaintiff was also charged in the Justice Court of El Paso, Precinct Number Three with "Intentionally and knowingly abuse another in a public place in an obviously offensive manner." State of Texas v. William Burkett, No. 305-1901CR.⁶ The District Attorney's office later dismissed the charges against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff contends that Officer Grijalva's blow to his knee caused injury requiring surgery. Plaintiff asserts he underwent such surgery, incurring approximately $15,000 worth of medical expenses. Plaintiff alleges he still suffers knee pain as a result of Grijalva's alleged assault and cannot perform the same activities as he did before the incident. Plaintiff avers that he "is deeply disturbed and bothered about his debilitating and excruciating injuries."⁷ Plaintiff also complains that the "false charges" filed, injured him. Plaintiff explains he now has a criminal record and "will now have to answer on any government security clearance questionnaire that he has been arrested by the EPPD."⁸

B. Plaintiff's Legal Assertions

As Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his claims against the City and the police officers involved in the alleged assault, only the County, Esparza and Miller remain as defendants in this action.⁹ The gravamen of Plaintiffs Complaint against these Defendants, to the best of the Court's understanding is: the Defendants, through the DIMS program, violated Plaintiffs First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying Plaintiff his right to be taken before a magistrate judge for a probable cause hearing. That is, the DIMS program improperly enabled Miller to make a "judicial determination" and set Plaintiffs bond, although Miller was not a magistrate. That said, it is not clear from Plaintiffs sixty-page Amended Complaint which causes of action he is alleging against each of the Defendants. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiffs action as proceeding against all Defendants on all potential causes of action even briefly mentioned by the Amended Complaint.¹⁰

The Court now summarizes those causes of action. Plaintiff sues the County and Esparza and Miller, in their individual and official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks redress under that statutory provision for the Defendants' alleged violations of Plaintiffs First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable under § 1985 and § 1986, the Court understands him to allege that, pursuant to DIMS, the City, County, Esparza, Assistant District Attorneys, and the El Paso Police Department have all conspired in some way to obstruct justice by depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also seems to assert a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act arguing the Defendants have somehow engaged in conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity by utilizing DIMS.

Turning to Plaintiffs state law claims, the Court understands Plaintiff to aver that Defendants intentionally and recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, which, caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. Finally, Plaintiff attempts to state a cause of action for "warrantless/false arrest and imprisonment" against all Defendants because Miller "acted with the intention of confining Plaintiff Burkett within fixed boundaries" and "Defendants Esparza, the City and County of El Paso created the DIMS program which made it possible for Burkett to be arrested and imprisoned illegally with his resulting damages."¹¹

C. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss

Defendants move the Court to dismiss all of Plaintiffs claims in their individual and official capacities pursuant to Local Court Rule CV-12 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).¹² Specifically, Esparza and Miller claim qualified immunity and prosecutorial immunity entitle them to dismissal of Plaintiff's claims under § 1983...