G.M. ex rel. Her Minor Child B.M. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Sheriff Sch. Res. Officer Casalduc

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Writing for the Court: JAMES A. PARKER
• Citation: G.M. ex rel. Her Minor Child B.M. v. Casalduc, 982 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D. N.M. 2013)
• Decision Date: 04 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. 1:13–cv–00049–JAP/KBM.,1:13–cv–00049–JAP/KBM.
• Parties: G.M., on behalf of her minor child B.M., Plaintiffs, v. Bernalillo County Sheriff School Resource Officer CASALDUC, Defendant.

982 F.Supp.2d 1235

G.M., on behalf of her minor child B.M., Plaintiffs,

v.Bernalillo County Sheriff School Resource Officer CASALDUC, Defendant.

No. 1:13–cv–00049–JAP/KBM.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Nov. 4, 2013.

Joseph P. Kennedy, Shannon L. Kennedy, Kennedy Law Firm, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiffs.

Luis E. Robles, Frank T. Apodaca, Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

JAMES A. PARKER, Senior District Judge.

On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff G.M., on behalf of her minor child B.M., moved for partial summary judgment. See PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S WRONGFUL ARREST CLAIM (Doc. No. 29) (“Plaintiff's MSJ”). Plaintiff asks the Court to grant summary judgment on Plaintiff's wrongful arrest claim and to determine that Defendant Bernalillo County Sheriff School Resource Officer Casalduc (“Officer Casalduc”) is not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendant filed three cross-motions for summary judgment. See DEFENDANT CASALDUC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. I: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDMENT WRONGFUL ARREST CLAIM BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (Doc. No. 47) (“Defendant's Wrongful Arrest MSJ”); DEFENDANT CASALDUC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. II: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (Doc. No. 49) (“Defendant's Excessive Force MSJ”); DEFENDANT CASALDUC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. III: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDMENT UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (Doc. No. 59) (“Defendant's Unlawful Search MSJ”) (collectively “Defendant's MSJs”). Defendant asserts qualified immunity and seeks a dismissal of Plaintiff's wrongful arrest claim, excessive force claim, and unlawful search claim. Because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court will deny Plaintiff's MSJ and will grant Defendant's MSJs.

BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

On April 18, 2011, B.M. was a fourteen-year-old eighth-grade student at Harrison Middle School (“HMS”) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Incident Report by Officer Casalduc, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's MSJ (Doc. No. 29–1) (“Incident Report”). Defendant Bernalillo County Sheriff School Resource Officer Casalduc (“Officer Casalduc”) worked at HMS as a School Resource Officer (“SRO”). Affidavit of School Resource Officer Ray Casalduc, Exhibit F to Defendant's Wrongful Arrest MSJ (Doc. No. 47–6) (“Casalduc Affidavit”) at ¶¶ 1, 6. Defendant began working at HMS in 2009, after retiring from the Albuquerque Police Department in 2007. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3. During the time Officer Casalduc worked at HMS he developed a “good working relationship” with HMS Dean of Students Mark O'Gawa (“Dean O'Gawa”) and with HMS Head Counselor Jo Ann Woolsey (“Counselor Woolsey”). Id. ¶ 14; Deposition of Jo Ann Woolsey, Exhibit B to Defendant's Wrongful Arrest MSJ (Doc. No. 47–2) (“Woolsey Deposition”) at 14:3–5. According to Counselor Woolsey, Officer Casalduc was “very approachable” and fair. Woolsey Deposition at 14:8.

B. School Policies on Cell Phones

HMS policy prohibited students from using cell phones or having them out during instructional time. Id. at 16:9–15. HMS defined instructional time as “time when a teacher is slotted to teach.” Id. at 16:24–25. If a student violated the policy, HMS practice dictated that the phone be confiscated, turned over to the school secretary, logged, and stored in a locked room. Id. at 17:20–18:1, 22:5–14. HMS would release the confiscated cell phone only to a parent or guardian. Id. at 22:15–17.

The HMS cell phone policy accorded with Albuquerque Public School (“APS”) policy, which required phones to be “kept out of sight and powered off or silenced during the school day.” Student Acceptable Use of Personal Electronic Devices, Exhibit D to Defendant's Wrongful Arrest MSJ (Doc. No. 47–4). APS policy authorized school staff to confiscate cell phones used in violation of school policy and directedschools to develop “internal procedures for staff concerning confiscation” of cell phones. Id. APS policy was available online. See id.

C. The April 18, 2011 Incident

On April 18, 2011, Dean O'Gawa contacted Officer Casalduc. Casalduc Affidavit ¶ 7. Dean O'Gawa informed Officer Casalduc that a student, B.M., had been texting in class. B.M. refused multiple requests by her teacher to stop texting and turn over her phone as required by school policy. As a result of B.M.'s refusal, her teacher stopped class to address B.M.'s behavior. Eventually, B.M.'s teacher summoned Dean O'Gawa to the classroom. Id. ¶¶ 9–11. Dean O'Gawa removed B.M. from class and brought her to the head administrative offices of HMS. See id. ¶ 12. In the administrative offices, B.M. ignored requests by Dean O'Gawa and Counselor Woolsey to relinquish her phone. Id.

Dean O'Gawa relayed the above information to Officer Casalduc and asked for his assistance. Id. ¶ 13. Officer Casalduc accompanied Dean O'Gawa to Counselor Woolsey's office, where B.M. was sitting. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. Officer Casalduc first spoke with Counselor Woolsey, who confirmed the information reported by Dean O'Gawa. Id. ¶¶ 16–17. Next, Officer Casalduc observed B.M. She had her feet on the chair and her arms locked around her knees in a squat position. She was rocking back and forth. A cell phone protruded from her back pocket. Id. ¶ 18.

Officer Casalduc introduced himself to B.M. and explained that she was required to provide her cell phone to Counselor Woolsey. B.M. refused to make eye contact and did not respond to Officer Casalduc. Id. ¶¶ 19–20. Officer Casalduc told B.M. that her conduct was disruptive because she prevented her teacher from instructing the class, interfered with Dean O'Gawa's and Counselor Woolsey's ability to be available to other students, and violated HMS school policy. Id. ¶¶ 21–23. Officer Casalduc explained NMSA § 30–20–13(D) and informed B.M. that she was violating the statute by texting in class and refusing to turn over her cell phone. Id. ¶¶ 24–25. NMSA § 30–20–13(D) criminalizes acts that disrupt, impair, interfere with, or obstruct school functions.

Officer Casalduc told B.M. that he would not arrest her if she agreed to relinquish the phone. Id. ¶ 25. Then, Officer Casalduc asked B.M. to give the phone to Counselor Woolsey. After receiving no response to his request, Officer Casalduc provided a final warning; he told B.M. he would place her under arrest unless she gave the phone to Counselor Woolsey. B.M. continued to ignore Officer Casalduc, while refusing to make eye contact. Id. ¶¶ 26–27.

At that time, Officer Casalduc placed B.M. under arrest. Id. ¶ 30. Officer Casalduc asked B.M. to stand and place her hands behind her back. B.M. complied. Id. He then instructed Counselor Woolsey to remove the cell phone from B.M.'s back pocket. Id.

After handcuffing B.M., Officer Casalduc tested for finger space between each cuff and each wrist. He “took care” that her wrists could move freely within the cuffs. Id. ¶ 32. He double locked each cuff to prevent the cuffs from further tightening. B.M. did not complain or otherwise indicate that the handcuffs were uncomfortable. Id. After transporting B.M. to the Juvenile Detention Center, Officer Casalduc inspected B.M.'s wrists; he did not notice any bruises or marks on her arms, wrists, or hands. Id.

D. Procedural History

On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES DUE TO DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS. See Exhibit A to NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Doc. No. 1–2) (“Complaint”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest, excessive force, and unlawful search in violation of B.M.'s Fourth Amendment rights. See id. at 3. The Complaint also cites New Mexico Constitution, Art. XII, § I and NMSA 1978 § 22–1–4, but the Complaint does not assert a claim under state law.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party may receive summary judgment if that party “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [the party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” When both parties move for summary judgment, the court must analyze each motion individually and on its own merits. SeeBuell Cabinet Co. v. Sudduth, 608 F.2d 431, 433 (10th Cir.1979) (explaining that “[c]ross-motions for summary judgment are to be treated separately; the denial of one does not require the grant of another.”). “Cross-motions for summary judgments, however, do authorize a court to assume that there is no evidence which needs to be considered other than that which has been filed by the parties.” Brubach v. City of Albuquerque, 893 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1223 (D.N.M.2012) (citing Buell Cabinet Co., 608 F.2d at 433;Harrison W. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Co., 662 F.2d 690, 692 (10th Cir.1981)). “Where the facts are not in dispute and the parties only disagree about whether the actions were constitutional, summary disposition is appropriate.” Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 483 F.3d 1025, 1030 (10th Cir.2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

B. Qualified Immunity Defense

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials who are required to exercise their discretion by shielding them from liability for harm caused by reasonable mistakes. Herrera v. City of Albuquerque, 589 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir.2009). When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of defendant's conduct. Courtney v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 722 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir.2013). A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

Under Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit...