Bustillos v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
| Decision Date | 06 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | EP–15–CV–311–PRM |
| Parties | Gloria BUSTILLOS, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, University Medical Center, Frank Mendez, Lynette Telles, Dr. Daniel Solomin, Dr. Michael Parsa, Dr. Jorge Aguila, Dr. Shaked Laks, Medical Student Raizada, and Four Unknown Federal AgentS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Ruben Perez Hernandez, Law Office of Ruben P. Hernandez, Hadley A. Huchton, Walter L. Boyaki, Boyaki Law Firm, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff.
John L. Ross, Chantel Loren Lee, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP, Jason T. Weber, Gruber Elrod Johansen Hail Shank, Dallas, TX, Richard Andrew Bonner, Kemp Smith LLP, Javier Saenz, Manuel Romero, El Paso, TX, Eric A. Hudson, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR PROTECTION
On this day, the Court considered the following:
Motion to Dismiss
Motions for Protective Order
in the above-captioned cause. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant all the outstanding motions to dismiss and deny as moot the motions for protection.
This matter arises out of an inspection at the United States–Mexico border. On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff was crossing from Mexico into the United States at the Paso del Norte International Bridge in El Paso, Texas. Pl's First Am. Compl. for Violations of Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [sic], Punitive Damages, Att'y Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 [sic], and Bivens Claims 2, Feb. 8, 2016, ECF No. 36 [hereinafter "Complaint"].
Plaintiff alleges that four U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement agents ("Federal Agents") inspected Plaintiff because they suspected that she was smuggling drugs. Id. Failing to discover drugs, the Federal Agents handcuffed and transported Plaintiff to the Defendant Hospital.1 Id. Once there, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hospital and former defendant Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center–El Paso ("Former Defendant Texas Tech") and their agents performed x-ray, pelvic, and rectal examinations. Id. After concluding that Plaintiff was not carrying drugs, "Plaintiff was returned to the bridge and released." Id.
In late September 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action in Texas state court. See id. A month later, Defendant Hospital removed the instant action to federal court. Notice of Removal, Oct. 23, 2015, ECF No. 1.2
Plaintiff's lawsuit asserts (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and (2) intentional tort claims.3 Specifically, Plaintiff makes the following factual allegations against each Defendant:
Drs. Laks, Parsa, Solomin, Aguila—doctors for Former Defendant Texas Tech—and Nurses Mendez, and Telles—nurses for Defendant Hospital—now bring their own respective motions to dismiss invoking qualified immunity and asserting that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Notably, Drs. Laks, Parsa, Solomin, and Aguila contend that they "reli[ed] upon [Federal] [A]gents seeking [Drs. Laks, Parsa, Solomin, and Aguila's] assistance and [were] under no obligation to inquire into the sufficiency of [the Federal Agents'] suspicion or probable cause before participating in an X–ray request or pelvic examination." See Def. Dr. Shaked Laks' [sic] Am. Mot. to Dismiss 13; Def. Dr. Michael Parsa's Am. Mot. to Dismiss 12; Def. Dr. Daniel Solomin's Mot. to Dismiss 12; Def.
Dr. Jorge Aguila's Mot. to Dismiss 12. Similarly, Nurse Mendez argues that he was "entitled to rely upon the [Federal Agents] and physician's determination that the requested procedures were authorized and lawful." See Def. Frank Mendez's Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement 11. Likewise, Nurse Telles contends that she "rel[ied] upon [Federal Agents] and physicians seeking his [sic] assistance [and] was under no obligation to inquire into the sufficiency of the [Federal Agents'] reasonable suspicion." Def. Lynette Telles' [sic] Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement 9.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Davila v. United States , 713 F.3d 248, 255 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). While a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations" to survive a motion to dismiss, Cuvillier v. Taylor , 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ) (internal quotation marks omitted), it must state "more than labels and conclusions": "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement." ’ Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Thus, at this stage, the Court must determine whether the well-pleaded facts in Plaintiff's Complaint, taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, are sufficient to "move [her] claim ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible.’ " Leal v. McHugh , 731 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
To establish a prima facie case under § 1983 for the deprivation of civil rights a Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by an individual acting under the color of state law. Doe v. Rains Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist ., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir. 1995). Section 1983 creates no substantive rights but merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights created under federal law. Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 393–94, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).
Plaintiff's lawsuit asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bright v. City of Killeen
...of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action barred by qualified immunity. See Bustillos v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist. , 226 F. Supp. 3d 778, 793 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (Martinez, J.) (dismissing a plaintiff's claim based on qualified immunity). Qualified immunity shields government ......
-
Ingram v. Mouser
...a recitation would serve to strengthen the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.Id. at 266. See also Bustillos v. El Paso Cty. Hosp. Dist., 226 F. Supp. 3d 778, 792-93 (W.D. Tex. 2016), aff'd, 891 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding because medical personnel defendants are "'required to have no......
-
Rhoten v. Stroman
...of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action barred by qualified immunity. See Bustillos v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 226 F. Supp. 3d 778, 793 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (Martinez, J.) (dismissing a plaintiff's claim based on qualified immunity). Qualified immunity shields government o......
-
Launza v. City of Mesquite
...Court can dismiss the official capacity claim as ‘redundant' to the municipal-entity claim.” Bustillos v. El Paso Cnty. Hospital Dist., 226 F.Supp.3d 778, 789 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citation omitted). [3] The failure-to-identify offense does assume a lawful arrest. But if Launza's resistance to ......