Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Tex., Civil Action No. 3:96-CV-2449-P.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1998
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:96-CV-2449-P.
• Citation: Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Tex., 8 F.Supp.2d 570 (N.D. Tex. 1998)
• Parties: Michael Shane HAZELTON, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS, Derrell Wynne, Individually, and Romero Moreno, Individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

8 F.Supp.2d 570

Michael Shane HAZELTON, Plaintiff, v.The CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS, Derrell Wynne, Individually, and Romero Moreno, Individually, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:96-CV-2449-P.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

February 9, 1998.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael David Deegan, Deegan & Bush, Fort Worth, TX, William Harrison Ray, Law Office of William H`Bill' Ray, Fort Worth, TX, Jimmy Carroll Minter, Law Office of Jim Minter, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff.

Kent Donovan Williamson, McCauley MacDonald & Devin, Dallas, TX, Edwin A. P. Voss, Jr., Joe C. Tooley, Law Office of Joe C. Tooley, Dallas, TX, James Thomas Jeffrey, Jr., Remington & Jeffrey, Arlington, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SOLIS, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are the following:

1.DefendantDerrell Wynne's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed on April 15, 1997;

2.Plaintiff's Response to DefendantDerrell Wynne's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed on May 13, 1997;

3.DefendantCity of Grand Prairie's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed on June 17, 1997;

4.Plaintiff's Response to Defendant City of Grand Prairie's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed on July 2, 1997;

5.DefendantCity of Grand Prairie and DefendantDerrell Wynne's Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), filed on July 24, 1997;

6.Plaintiff's Response to Defendant City of Grand Prairie and DefendantDerrell Wynne's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, filed on August 7, 1997;

7.DefendantCity of Grand Prairie's Motion for Entry of Judgment on Plaintiff's State-Law Claims and Brief in Support, filed on July 29, 1997;

8.Plaintiff's Response to Defendant City of Grand Prairie's Motion for Entry of Judgment and Brief in Support, filed on July 31, 1997;

9.DefendantRomero Moreno's Motion and Brief Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed on December 8, 1997; and

10.Plaintiff's Response to DefendantRomero Moreno's Motion to Dismiss, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and Brief in Support, filed on December 22, 1997.

BACKGROUND

PlaintiffMichael Shane Hazelton("Plaintiff" or "Hazelton") has filed suit against Defendants The City of Grand Prairie("City"), Derrell Wynne("Wynne"), individually, and Romero Moreno("Moreno"), individually (collectively referred to as "Defendants").Specifically, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants for violations of his constitutional rights.In addition, Plaintiff alleges violations of state common law against Wynne and Moreno for assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Plaintiff also asserts a claim for false arrest against Wynne.Finally, Plaintiff asserts a state law cause of action against the City for violations of Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem Code Ann. § 101.001, et seq.("Texas Tort Claims Act").

Plaintiff's lawsuit arises out of an incident which occurred on September 15, 1994.After completing his shift at work and cashing his payroll check, Hazelton bought a six pack of beer.(PlaintiffAff., ¶¶ 10-11).As Hazelton was driving home, his car ran out of gas, so he began walking to a store to obtain gasoline for his automobile.Since the nearest gasoline station was some distance away, Hazelton stopped to rest.As he was resting on the curb, Wynne and an unnamed officer approached Hazelton and, after a brief inquiry, asked him to participate in a field sobriety test.Plaintiff asserts that he complied with Wynne's request to recite the alphabet.When Wynne asked him to start with "F" and recite backwards, however, Hazelton had difficulty responding, due to an alleged laming disability.When Wynne refused to allow Plaintiff to count with his fingers, Plaintiff refused to perform the requested test.(PlaintiffAff., ¶ 44a).¹Hazelton claims that he informed Wynne of his disability, but Wynne arrested him and charged Hazelton with public intoxication.

After placing Hazelton under arrest, Wynne took him to the Grand Prairie Police Department jail.Upon arriving at the jail, Hazelton surrendered his personal belongings, including a total of two hundred and thirty-four dollars.²After pulling off his boots and being instructed to turn his socks inside out, Hazelton said "make me."(PlaintiffAff., ¶ 65).Upon hearing this remark, Wynne allegedly said, "you shouldn't have said that, they're going to make it hard on you."(PlaintiffAff., ¶ 66).Moreno proceeded to search Hazelton and then he placed Hazelton in a cell with seven or eight other individuals.

After being placed in the cell, Hazelton attempted to make a phone call.When the phone would not operate properly, he slammed the receiver.(PlaintiffAff., ¶¶ 78-84).Shortly after Hazelton slammed the phone, Moreno came into the cell and told Hazelton to lay down on the floor.Moreno handcuffed him and took Hazelton to another cell, which was isolated from the other detainees.Hazelton claims that when Moreno handcuffed him and took him to the other cell, Moreno broke at least one bone in his hand, which eventually required surgery.Additionally, Hazelton claims that the officers would not allow him to use the bathroom despite his repeated requests, so he urinated in his pants.

Eventually, Hazelton's girlfriend posted bag and an unknown employee of the City processed his release.According to Hazelton, this unknown employee inquired as to Hazelton's ability to sign the release forms, due to the condition of his hand.Plaintiff asserts that he did not file a complaint while being released from the jail because he was too afraid to complain about the injuries he had sustained.After his release, Plaintiff alleges that he counted his money and discovered that the four $50 bills were missing from his billfold.Plaintiff then proceeded to the emergency room at North Hills Medical Clinic, where an x-ray showed that his hand was broken.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 29, 1996.On June 25, 1997, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order ("June 25 Order") which granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.Specifically, the June 25 Order dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Wynne in his official capacity.³The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's intentional tort claims, if any, against the City.(June 25 Order, at 16).⁴Further, the June 25 Order allowed Plaintiff to replead with more specificity his § 1983 constitutional tort claims against the City for inadequate discipline and his state law negligence claim against the City.(June 25 Order, at 8, 16).The June 25 Order also required Plaintiff to file a response to Wynne's qualified immunity defense on Plaintiff's federal claims against Wynne individually.(June 25 Order, at 13).Finally, the June 25 Order declined to dismiss Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the City for failure to train and his state tort law claims against Wynne in his individual capacity.(June 25 Order, at 5, 15).In light of the decisions rendered by the Court in the June 25 Order, the Amended Complaint filed on July 14, 1997, and Plaintiff's Reply to Wynne's qualified immunity defense on the federal claims, the following claims remain before the Court for disposition:

1.Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Wynne individually for violations of Plaintiff's federal rights;⁵

2.Plaintiff's state tort law claims against Wynne individually;⁶

3.Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against the City for failure to train and inadequate discipline;⁷

4.Plaintiff's claims against Moreno individually;⁸ and

5.Plaintiff's state law negligence claim against the City.⁹

DISCUSSION

I. CITY'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

In light of the June 25 Order dismissing any state-law intentional tort claims against the City, Defendant filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment on July 29, 1997.Plaintiff filed a timely Response, asserting that there were never any claims against the City for intentional torts and pointing out that entering a final judgment might preclude a cause of action against Wynne individually.¹⁰The Court has previously decided that the City is not labile for any state-law intentional torts.Because there remain other claims against the City, however, the Court declines to enter final judgment on this issue at this time.Thus, the City's Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

II.SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).The moving party must identify the evidence on file in the case which establishes the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.Celotex,477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

Once the moving party has made an initial showing, the party opposing the motion must offer evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the required elements of the party's case.Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986).Mere assertions of a factual dispute unsupported by probative evidence will not prevent summary judgment; the party defending against a motion for summary judgment Cannot defeat the motion unless it provides specific facts that show the case presents a genuine issue of material fact, such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor.Anderson,477 U.S. at 256-57, ...