Hobart v. City of Stafford

Decision Date09 January 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 4:09–cv–3332.
Citation916 F.Supp.2d 783
PartiesSteve HOBART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF STAFFORD, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James C. Harrington, Texas Civil Rights Project, Austin, TX, Susan E. Hutchison, Hutchison, Lewis & Dauphinot, P.C., Grapevine, TX, for Plaintiffs.

William Scott Helfand, Norman Ray Giles, Chamberlain Hrdlicka et al., Houston, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEITH P. ELLISON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Stafford (“the City” or “Stafford”) and Chief Bonny Krahn's (“Chief Krahn”) Motion for Summary Judgment Addressing Ratification Theory of Recovery. (Doc. No. 94.) After considering the motion, all responses thereto, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion must be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises from the death of Aaron Hobart (Aaron), son of Plaintiffs Steve and Pam Hobart (collectively, “the Hobarts” or Plaintiffs). Many of the facts of this case have been laid out in the Court's April 29, 2011 Memorandum and Order, 784 F.Supp.2d 732 (S.D.Tex.2011) (the April 2011 Order”), and the Court's April 17, 2012 Memorandum and Order, 2012 WL 1327785 (the April 2012 Order”). (Doc. Nos. 79, 87.) The circumstances leading up to Aaron' Hobart's death are recounted below, as are the steps the City took after the incident. Additional facts, including facts about the City's policies, can be found in the Court's prior orders.

A. Aaron Hobart's Death

Nineteen-year-old Aaron Hobart suffered from a schizoaffective disorder, which resulted in delusions. (Doc. No. 72–24, Moreland Decl.) 1 Aaron's mental health was deteriorating in the days, weeks, and months leading up to his death on February 18, 2009. In 2008, Aaron was examined by three doctors, and had two visits with the third, Dr. C. Scott Moreland, a psychiatrist. (Doc. Nos. 32–9, 32–10, 32–11, Aaron Hobart's Medical Records.) Dr. Moreland's records indicate that Aaron had stopped taking his medication in November 2008. (Doc. No. 32–9 at 178–79.) On February 16, 2009, Mrs. Hobart called Dr. Moreland's office to request an immediate appointment. ( Id.) The office scheduled an appointment for Aaron on February 18, the next available slot. ( Id.) Mrs. Hobart said that, at that time, Aaron was not posing a danger to himself or to others. ( Id.) Mrs. Hobart was instructed to call Dr. Moreland's office if there was any change in Aaron's mental status, and was told that, if Aaron became a danger to himself or others, she should call 911 or take Aaron to the emergency room. ( Id.)

On February 18, 2009, Aaron refused to leave his room to go to his appointment with Dr. Moreland. When Mr. Hobart came home from work, he found Aaron in his room, speaking “belligerently and abusively” in a raspy alternate voice. (Doc. No. 72–5, Steve Hobart Dep. at 20:8–24:23.) Mrs. Hobart called Dr. Moreland, who told her not to press Aaron to attend the appointment that day, so that Aaron could calm down. (Doc. No. 32–9 at 183.) Dr. Moreland also sent a follow-up email to Mrs. Hobart giving her instructions on how to administer Aaron's medication, and providing information from the Houston Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) website regarding how to request emergency help. ( Id. at 184–85.) The information stated that the CIT program “educates patrol officers about mental illness and tactics and techniques to help verbally de-escalate situations involving individuals in serious mental health crises,” that one should call for a CIT officer [w]hen the situation involves a person in a serious mental health crisis,” and that, if the situation is an emergency, one should call 911 and request a CIT officer. ( Id.) It also noted that [i]f the person is mentally ill and poses a substantial risk of imminent harm to self or others, Texas Peace officers have the authority to take the individual to a facility for an emergency mental health evaluation, even if the person is involuntary. The officer may use whatever force he needs to get the individual to the facility for evaluation.” ( Id.)

Based on the instructions in Dr. Moreland's email, Mrs. Hobart called 911 and requested a “CIT officer.” (Doc. No. 72–9, Dispatch Tr. at 1.) She told the 911 operator, “I have a son that needs to be taken,” that Aaron was “becoming ... very violent,” that he was “deteriorate” [sic] and “becoming delusional,” but that he's not hurting anyone,” “needs to be in a hospital,” and “needs medication.” ( Id.) The operator informed Mrs. Hobart that an officer would come to the Hobarts' home. ( Id.) A few minutes later, an employee from the Stafford Police Department (“SPD”) called Mrs. Hobart twice with further questions, and Mrs. Hobart informed him that Aaron was “becoming more and more belligerent,” but that he did not have any weapons in his room and that he was not “under the influence.” ( Id. at 2–3.) Officers Garcia and Claunch from the SPD were the primary officers dispatched on the call, but Officer Estrada was the first to arrive at the Hobarts' home. (Doc. No. 72–3, Jesus Estrada Dep. at 176:23–177:13.)

Officer Estrada testified that, prior to arriving at the home, he was aware that Aaron was hallucinating, but did not know if Aaron was mentally ill or was simply under the influence of drugs. ( Id. at 138:6–139:24.) Officer Estrada also testified that he believed dispatch had informed him that Aaron did not have a weapon. ( Id. at 179:21–180:11.) SPD Sergeant Dustin Claborn (“Sgt. Claborn”) testified that Officer Estrada asked dispatch to request Mrs. Hobart to step outside to talk to him when he arrived. (Doc. No. 72–2, Claborn Dep. at 126:16–20.) However, it is undisputed that, when Officer Estrada arrived, Mrs. Hobart let him into the house. ( Id. at 128:12–17.) Sgt. Claborn also testified that Officer Estrada did not attempt to learn where Aaron was located or whether he was trying to hurt himself or others. ( Id. at 127:19–130:4.)

The video camera in Officer Estrada's car was running during the events at issue in this case, and both sides have provided that footage as an exhibit. The video shows Officer Estrada entering the Hobarts' home by himself at approximately 15:07:59 on the video's clock. For a period of time, only the front yard is visible, with audio from inside the home captured on Officer Estrada's microphone. Immediately after he enters the home, one can hear Officer Estrada conversing with Mrs. Hobart. At approximately 15:08:15, one can hear noises, and Officer Estrada shouts, “Stop!” and “Get back!” several times. At approximately 15:08:20, one can hear gunshots. Officer Estrada then begins shouting, “Goddamnit!” “Shots fired!” and “Oh my god!” and Mrs. Hobart begins screaming loudly. The video then shows two other SPD officers arriving in the house at approximately 15:08:43. They accompany Officer Estrada onto the lawn, where Estrada kneels down with his head on the ground sobbing, and remains panicked during the next seven minutes of video and audio, repeatedly saying, “Oh my god,” crying, and stating that he cannot catch his breath.

Officer Estrada and Mrs. Hobart offer different versions of what happened during the approximately 54 seconds that Estrada was in the house. According to Officer Estrada, the following occurred: When he first entered, he thought that everything seemed quiet and normal, and “perceived ... that either the disturbance was over or there was no disturbance.” (Estrada Dep. at 208:4–211:11.) Mrs. Hobart let him in, and the two spoke inside the house. ( Id.) Officer Estrada then began walking down the hall, at which point Mrs. Hobart pointed down the hall, and Officer Estrada saw Aaron, approximately thirty feet away. ( Id. at 224:17–230:24.) Aaron was in a bedroom, and at first he was facing away from Officer Estrada, not yelling, screaming, or causing a disturbance. ( Id. at 228:3–14.) Aaron then turned and saw Officer Estrada for the first time, at which point he loudly “roared,” brought his arms up “from down low to—up to his waist,” and began to charge at Officer Estrada. ( Id. at 228:15–233:24.)

At that point, Officer Estrada, who was approximately five feet away from the front door of the house, “attempted to step back away from [Aaron] to give him room” because he believed Aaron was “going to come at” him. ( Id. at 233:23–234:2.) However, Officer Estrada was unable to get out of Aaron's way or to back out of the house because Aaron traveled the entire length of the hallway and began “attacking” Officer Estrada. ( Id.) Officer Estrada remembers in those moments “hearing and feeling [ ] thumps on [his] head” that he attributes to “being punched” on the left side of his face and head. ( Id. at 251:23–260:24.) Officer Estrada states that he attempted to pull out his baton, but was unable to do so because it got stuck in its holster. ( Id.) He was also unable to use his spray or operate his police radio. ( Id. at 237:16–241:13.) Officer Estrada testified that Aaron hit him to the point where Officer Estrada became “disoriented,” began “seeing stars,” and experienced “darkness” coming into his vision. ( Id. at 252:4–5, 263:15–19.) He thought he was “fixing to be knocked out.” ( Id. at 264:9–24.) He then heard the sound of gunshots, but did not know that he was the one shooting, let alone who he was shooting at. ( Id. at 262:21–263:5.) He did not know where Aaron was in relation to him when the shooting occurred, and is not sure where Mrs. Hobart was at the time (though he thinks she was to his left). ( Id. at 265:3–268:13.) A few seconds later, Officer Estrada believed that Aaron was getting back up, and he felt someone who he believed to be Aaron grabbing his vest. ( Id. at 275:22–277:15.) Officer Estrada attempted to shoot his gun again, but could not get his fingers to squeeze the trigger. ( Id.) The person grabbing his vest turned out to be one of his fellow SPD...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Taylor v. Hartley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • September 22, 2020
    ...a ratification theory is somewhat unclear as discussed and applied in other Fifth Circuit precedent. See Hobart v. City of Stafford , 916 F. Supp. 2d 783, 794–97 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (collecting precedent). But three points warrant analysis here. First, a clear prerequisite is knowing approval ......
  • Curran v. Aleshire
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • December 16, 2014
    ...not to discipline a single officer for a single incident of illegality’ ”) (citations omitted); see also Hobart v. City of Stafford, 916 F.Supp.2d 783, 799 (S.D.Tex.2013) (finding that no such claim exists under supervisory liability).The only elaboration on these claims contained in April'......
  • Khansari v. City of Hous.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • April 9, 2014
    ...subject to dismissal because, as a matter of law, no such claim may be stated against Chief McClelland. See Hobart v. City of Stafford, 916 F.Supp.2d 783, 799 (S.D.Tex.2013) (post-incident ratification cannot impart liability on a supervisor).Some § 1983 plaintiffs have argued that inadequa......
  • Echols v. Gardiner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 3, 2013
    ...policymaker approves "the basis for" the subordinate'sdecision. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127; see also Hobart v. City of Stafford, 916 F. Supp. 2d 783, 795 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (Ellison, J.); Oporto v. City of El Paso, Tex., 2012 WL 2191697, at *9 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2012) (stating that plaintif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT