Holcomb v. McCraw
| Decision Date | 26 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. A–15–CA–748–SS |
| Citation | 262 F.Supp.3d 437 |
| Parties | Terry HOLCOMB, Sr., Scott Smith, Amos James Postell, Christopher John Grisham, Jacob Cordova, Travis Kuenstler, and Joseph Walker, Plaintiffs, v. Steven MCCRAW, Jose Ortiz, Rolando Rivas, John Pelath, Dan Bristow, Ryan McKittrick, Roy Lytle, Roosevelt Hatcher, Eric Brackelsberg, John Land, Eugenio Cruz, M. Eric Peel, Richard Juarez, Bertha Farias, Todd Ashby, Raul Vargas, Robert Roseberry, Scott Houghton, and John Does A–Z, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
262 F.Supp.3d 437
Terry HOLCOMB, Sr., Scott Smith, Amos James Postell, Christopher John Grisham, Jacob Cordova, Travis Kuenstler, and Joseph Walker, Plaintiffs,
v.
Steven MCCRAW, Jose Ortiz, Rolando Rivas, John Pelath, Dan Bristow, Ryan McKittrick, Roy Lytle, Roosevelt Hatcher, Eric Brackelsberg, John Land, Eugenio Cruz, M. Eric Peel, Richard Juarez, Bertha Farias, Todd Ashby, Raul Vargas, Robert Roseberry, Scott Houghton, and John Does A–Z, Defendants.
Case No. A–15–CA–748–SS
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.
Signed June 26, 2017
Filed June 27, 2017
Millie L. Thompson, Law Office of Millie L. Thompson, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Christopher L. Lindsey, Demetri Anastasiadis, Office of the Attorney General State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants.
ORDER
SAM SPARKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BE IT REMEMBERED on the 9th day of June 2017, the Court held a hearing in the above-styled cause and the parties appeared through counsel. Before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [# 65], Plaintiffs' Response [# 56] in opposition, and Defendants' Reply [# 67] in support. Having considered the documents, the arguments of counsel, the governing law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and order.
This is a civil rights action brought by gun rights activists, each of whom was arrested for criminal trespass while advocating for "open carry"—the practice of openly carrying firearms in public—by displaying fake guns at the Texas State Capitol. Defendants, all of whom are sued in their individual capacities, were Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) State Troopers assigned to the Texas State Capitol Complex at the time of the open-carry demonstrations.
Plaintiffs bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Previously, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding a number of Plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims failed to allege personal involvement of the individual Defendants, some Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiffs' state constitutional claims were either moot or not viable. Order of Apr. 14, 2016 [# 52].
Defendants now move for summary judgment on all remaining claims brought
against them. Mot. Summ. J. [# 65]. The parties agree the claims of three Plaintiffs—Christopher John Grisham, Joseph Walker, and Travis Kuenstler—remain. Id. at 3–4; Resp. [# 66] at 3–12.1
Background
I. Capitol Security
DPS "has primary responsibility for law enforcement and security services on the Capitol Complex." Tex. Gov't Code § 411.062(a). As part of that responsibility, DPS is charged with adopting "rules relating to security of persons and access to and protection of the grounds, public buildings, and property of the state within the Capitol Complex...." Id. § 411.062(d). The Texas State Capitol is located at the heart of the Capitol Complex, surrounded by a segment of property known as the Capitol Grounds.
On October 17, 2013, the Texas Public Safety Commission (Commission)—the entity responsible for overseeing DPS—held a public meeting. Mot. Summ. J. [# 65–1] Ex. A (Oct. 17, 2013 Minutes) at 1. One of the Commission's items of business included reviewing DPS's role in providing security for the Capitol Complex. DPS's general counsel summarized Texas law concerning weapons and current enforcement efforts. Id. at 3. In particular, the general counsel summarized the "[m]easures currently in place to give guidance to officers":
1. Right of [Concealed Handgun Licence (CHL) ] Holders to lawfully carry acknowledged throughout Capital Complex[;]
2. "Open Carry" weapons allowed in Capitol Complex outside of Capitol Grounds except if carried in manner calculated to alarm[;]
3. Firearms and other deadly weapons carried other than as authorized under CHL authority prohibited on Capital Grounds, Capitol Building, and Capitol Extension[; and]
4. Individuals will be afforded opportunity to comply with officer request prior to consideration of enforcement action[.]
Id. at 3–4.
II. Grisham's Arrest
On November 11, 2013, Grisham, the leader of an open-carry activist organization, stood on the steps of the Capitol Building speaking to a group of approximately fifteen fellow activists. Resp. [# 66–1] Ex. A (Grisham Aff.) ¶ 5. The small group of activists featured individuals carrying flags, video cameras, and handguns. Id. Ex. H (Pls.' Grisham Video) at 02:54–58; see also Mot. Summ. J. [# 65–7] Ex. G (Defs.' Grisham Video).2 Grisham was
wearing a belt holster with a toy pistol in it. See Pls.' Grisham Video; Defs.' Grisham Video. At no point did Grisham pull the toy pistol out of the holster or make a motion to do so. See id.
While Grisham was speaking to the other activists, Defendants Scott Houghton and Roosevelt Hatcher approached the group. Pls.' Grisham Video at 2:55; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:22. Houghton announced, "Gentlemen, y'all gonna need to take your firearms off the Capitol Grounds." Pls.' Grisham Video at 03:01; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:28. Grisham responded, "I don't have a firearm, sir." Pls.' Grisham Video at 03:02; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:32. Houghton repeated his request for the activists to take their firearms off the Capitol Grounds. Pls.' Grisham Video at 03:05; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:34. Grisham replied, "No sir, we are not breaking any laws." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:10; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:37.
In response, Houghton stated, "You are not allowed to have your weapons here on the grounds." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:13; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:40. Grisham then questioned "According to what, sir?" Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:14; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:42. Houghton answered with "This is the last time I am going to tell you—" when Grisham interrupted, "No sir, please tell me what law I am breaking." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:16; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:45. Houghton then stated "Ok, sir, please take your weapons off the grounds." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:21; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:48. Grisham questioned, "But under what authority are you telling me to leave?" Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:23; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:52.
After this question, Houghton ordered Grisham to turn around and informed Grisham he was under arrest for criminal trespass. Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:24; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:54. As Houghton reached for him, Grisham backed away from the officers, replying "Woah, woah, for what?" Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:27; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:56. Houghton repeated his order for Grisham to turn around and Hatcher also ordered Grisham to turn around. Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:28; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:56. Grisham did not comply and the officers reached for him. Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:28; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:57. Houghton and Hatcher moved closer to Grisham and started trying to force his arms behind his back. Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:29–32; Defs.' Grisham Video at 0:57–1:00. Hatcher again ordered Grisham to turn around and repeated that Grisham was under arrest. Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:33–35; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:00–03. At no point did Grisham comply with the officers' orders to turn around. See Pls.' Grisham Video; Defs.' Grisham Video.
While the crowd shouted at the officers, Grisham shouted, "I am not breaking the law." Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:00. Simultaneously, Hatcher continued to order, "You are under arrest. Put your arms behind your back, sir." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:35–38; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:00. Twice, Hatcher shouted, "Do not resist." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:38; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:00–12. As the officers tried to get the handcuffs on Grisham, he shouted, "Don't f—ing break my arm, a—." Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:39; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:07. Grisham also shouted, "I am not resisting. Shut the f—up, shut up" Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:44; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:14.
After the handcuffs were around Grisham's wrists, he announced, "Do you realize that I am carrying a toy. Did you even bother to check?" Pls.' Grisham Video at 3:58; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:28. Houghton responded, "No sir, I asked you to
take them off the grounds." Pls.' Grisham Video at 4:03.
While the officers continued to secure Grisham, the crowd jeered at the officers. See Pls.' Grisham Video; Defs.' Grisham Video. After the handcuffs were secure, Grisham commented several times, "I am not carrying a firearm." Pls.' Grisham Video at 4:13–15; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:44. Shortly thereafter, the officers escorted Grisham into the Capitol Building. Pls.' Grisham Video at 4:25–4:30; Defs.' Grisham Video at 1:50–2:04. Grisham was charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest. Mot. Summ. J [# 65–5] Ex. E (Grisham's Offense Report) at 1. The same day Grisham was arrested, a Travis County magistrate judge found probable cause for both charges and set bail. Id. at 7–8.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delacruz v. City of Port Arthur
...initially plead his good faith and establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority.'" Holcomb v. McCraw, 262 F. Supp. 3d 437, 446 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (quoting Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2008)). "An official acts within his discretionary autho......
-
Sinegal v. City of Chad
...cause determination in order to apply the independent intermediary doctrine to dismiss a plaintiff's claim. See Holcomb v. McCraw , 262 F. Supp. 3d 437, 452 (W.D. Tex. 2017). The Holcomb court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claims of two pl......
-
Redding v. Swanton
...the indictment. 6. The independent intermediary doctrine does not need to be raised as an affirmative defense. Holcomb v. McCraw, 262 F.Supp.3d 437, 452 (W.D. Texas June 27, 2017). ...
-
Mitchell v. Stroman
...the indictment. 4. The independent intermediary doctrine does not need to be raised as an affirmative defense. Holcomb v. McCraw, 262 F.Supp.3d 437, 452 (W.D. Texas June 27, 2017). ...