Chuttoo v. Horton
| Decision Date | 07 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4:20-CV-211-SDJ |
| Parties | SATISH CHUTTOO v. STEFAN HORTON, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Satish Chuttoo alleges that two Frisco, Texas police officers, Stefan Horton and Eliu Andrade, violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force against him during a traffic stop and unlawfully arrested him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights.[1] Chuttoo also claims that the City of Frisco is liable for the alleged constitutional violations because of its failure to properly train its officers. Before the Court are the officers' and the City's respective motions for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. #21, #22). The officers invoke the defense of qualified immunity, and the City argues that Chuttoo fails to plausibly allege the required elements of a Section 1983-based municipal liability claim. Both motions are fully briefed. And, for the following reasons, both motions are GRANTED.
On March 14, 2018, Chuttoo was driving in Frisco, Texas, when he passed the Frisco Police Department headquarters. At the same time, Officers Horton and Andrade pulled out of the parking lot of the police department and started heading in the same direction as Chuttoo. Because Chuttoo “was instinctively distrusting of the police in general,” he “became suspicious.” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 10-11).
While the officers were near him, Chuttoo held his phone up through the sunroof of his car. At some point, the officers initiated a traffic stop, and Chuttoo pulled into the parking lot of the India Bazaar grocery store. Horton approached Chuttoo first and said, (Dkt. #17-2 at 0:4149). In response Chuttoo asked, (Dkt. #17-2 at 0:49-55). Andrade then asked Chuttoo for his driver's license and insurance. Chuttoo said, “I will give you license,” and then asked again if stalking was allowed. (Dkt. #17-2 at 0:57-1:00). Andrade then asked Chuttoo if someone was stalking him, to which Chuttoo responded, “Yeah.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:00-1:02).
Horton tried to defuse the situation and casually said, (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:01-06). Chuttoo then interjected that he is a doctor but “wanted to be a cop” and that his dad “was a cop for 35 years.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:06-14). Andrade, apparently trying to alleviate Chuttoo's stalking concerns, told Chuttoo that he did not know who he was or whether he was a doctor. Following suit, Horton added, (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:12-19). This seemed to upset Chuttoo, who told the officers, (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:20-30). Chuttoo then handed his driver's license to Andrade.
At this point, things escalated. Horton started to ask Chuttoo a question: “What's going on, man, why are you so . . .” (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:30-39). Before Horton could finish his question, Chuttoo removed his seatbelt, leaned out the window, pointed his finger in the air, and loudly proclaimed, (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:31-39). Chuttoo then abruptly reached toward the glove compartment of his car. (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:39). Andrade unholstered his weapon and aimed it at Chuttoo, while Horton unholstered his weapon but did not aim it at Chuttoo. (Dkt. #17-3 at 1:40-43); (Dkt. #17-1 at 2:2533). Andrade instructed Chuttoo to show his hands and to not reach for anything. Chuttoo responded, “I am getting license,” and put his hands in front of him. (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:45-49).
Andrade then opened the car door and grabbed Chuttoo's left hand, simultaneously commanding him to “[g]et out of the car.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:46-50). Chuttoo did not immediately comply. Andrade again commanded Chuttoo to “get out of the car” and warned him twice, “You're about to get tased.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:5053). Both officers had holstered their weapons at this point. Chuttoo said, “You asked me to get license.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 1:54-55). Chuttoo then exited his vehicle, and Horton grabbed Chuttoo's right hand. A few seconds later, Chuttoo began screaming and running forward while the officers held onto him. (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:00-2:07).[2] A physical struggle ensued, during which Chuttoo repeatedly screamed, “help me,” and the officers wrestled Chuttoo to the ground.
Chuttoo continued struggling while the officers tried to keep him on the ground. Andrade told Chuttoo to stop resisting and to relax and warned him that he was about to be tased. (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:08-14). The officers continually told Chuttoo to get on the ground. Chuttoo responded, “Okay, okay,” yelled, “Help me,” and then said, “I'm stopping” before forcing his way back onto his feet. (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:12-27). Andrade warned Chuttoo that he would be tased if he did not get back on the ground, and the officers got Chuttoo back on the ground. (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:30-37).
Andrade yelled, “What's wrong with you, man,” and commanded Chuttoo to “lay flat” and “relax.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:46-55). Chuttoo still did not place his hands behind his back and complained of his of arthritis. (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:51-54). The officers pulled Chuttoo part way up, so that he remained on his knees but his hands were off the ground, tried to handcuff him, and commanded him to give them his hands. (Dkt. #17-2 at 2:55-3:13). After Chuttoo failed to comply, the officers pushed his face into the ground. (Dkt. #17-2 at 3:17-19). Chuttoo then pushed his body off the ground, and Andrade tased him, with the taser in “drive-stun” mode.[3] (Dkt. #17-2 at 3:27-28). Andrade told Chuttoo to put his hands behind his back or he would be tased again, to which Chuttoo responded, “okay, okay.” (Dkt. #17-2 at 3:30-35). A second or two later, Andrade tased Chuttoo a second time, again in drive-stun mode. (Dkt. #17-2 at 3:35-37). At this point, Chuttoo relented and put his hands behind his back. The officers handcuffed Chuttoo and then requested medical assistance. (Dkt. #17-2 at 3:40-48, 5:33-35).
The officers arrested Chuttoo for resisting arrest and interference with public duties. Following the arrest, Chuttoo was charged with the misdemeanor offense of resisting arrest. The prosecutor ultimately dropped the charges against him.
Chuttoo subsequently filed this lawsuit against Horton, Andrade, and the City. He brings individual- and official-capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Horton and Andrade, alleging that they used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment and unlawfully arrested him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Based on these alleged constitutional violations, Chuttoo also brings a Section 1983 claim for municipal liability against the City.
The officers and the City now separately move for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Dkt. #21, #22). Based on the video evidence depicting the encounter, the officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Chuttoo's constitutional claims. The City likewise says it is entitled to judgment in its favor because, in its view, Chuttoo has failed to plausibly allege the required elements to state a Section 1983-based municipal liability claim.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed- but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” A Rule 12(c) motion “is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). “The standard for Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings is identical to the standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Waller v. Hanlon, 922 F.3d 590, 599 (5th Cir. 2019). To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)).
Determining whether a claim is plausible is a two-step inquiry. First, a court “must identify the complaint's well-pleaded factual content,” which is entitled to a presumption of truth, and set aside “any unsupported legal conclusions,” which are not entitled to the same presumption. Id. (quoting Doe v. Robertson 751 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 2014)); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (). Second, after removing all unsupported legal conclusions, the court must ask whether “the remaining allegations are sufficient to nudge the plaintiff's claim across the plausibility threshold.” Waller, 922 F.3d at 599 (cleaned up). This threshold is surpassed when the court, drawing on its common sense and judicial experience, “can reasonably infer from the complaint's well-pleaded factual content ‘more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial