Martin v. City of Albuquerque

• Decision Date: 17 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. CIV 14–1011 JB/GBW,CIV 14–1011 JB/GBW
• Citation: 147 F.Supp.3d 1298
• Parties: Jeremy Martin, Plaintiff, v. City of Albuquerque, a municipal corporation, and Pablo Padilla, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

147 F.Supp.3d 1298

Jeremy Martin, Plaintiff,

v.City of Albuquerque, a municipal corporation, and Pablo Padilla, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

No. CIV 14–1011 JB/GBW

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed November 17, 2015

Eric Loman, Bregman & Loman, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiff

Jonlyn M. Martinez, Law Office of Jonlyn M. Martinez, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Pablo Padilla

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER¹

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Padilla's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed April 10, 2015 (Doc. 25) (“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on October 9, 2015. The primary issue is whether Defendant Pablo Padilla, a police officer with the Albuquerque Police Department in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is entitled to qualified immunity when he allegedly kneed Plaintiff Jeremy Martin's groin and threw him to the ground while attempting to arrest him. Because the parties dispute whether Padilla struck Martin in the groin, the reasonableness of Padilla's use of force is disputed and the Court cannot properly grant summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will deny Padilla's Motion regarding Martin's claims that Padilla's actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 25, 2014, Martin was driving a vehicle in Albuquerque when Padilla, “who was on duty and acting in his capacity as a police officer at the time,” stopped Martin for traffic violations.² Jeremy Martin v. City of Albuquerque, 2014, D–202–CV–2014–06580, Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Tort Claims ¶¶ 7–8, at 2, filed in the County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court on October 21, filed in federal court November 6, 2014 (Doc. 1–2)(“Complaint”)(setting forth this fact). See Defendant Padilla's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Tort Claims ¶ 7, at 2, filed November 24, 2014 (Doc. 7)(“Padilla's Answer”)(not disputing this fact); The City of Albuquerque's Answer to Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Tort Claims ¶¶ 7–8, at 2, filed November 17, 2014 (Doc. 4)(“City's Answer”). See Motion ¶ 1, at 3 (setting forth this fact)(not disputing this fact); Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Padilla's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity at 3 (not disputing this fact), filed April 24, 2015 (Doc. 29)(“Response”). Padilla instructed Martin to exit his vehicle, which Martin did. See Complaint ¶ 10, at 2 (setting forth this fact); Padilla's Answer ¶ 9, at 2 (not disputing this fact); City's Answer ¶ 10, at 2 (not disputing this fact). Martin “admitted to drinking three beers.” Motion ¶ 2, at 3 (setting forth this fact). See Response at 3 (not disputing this fact).

Padilla repeatedly directed Martin to sit down, but Martin refused. See Motion ¶ 3, at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 3 (not disputing this fact). During a period of approximately two minutes, Padilla asked Martin to sit down “more than thirty times.” Motion ¶¶ 4–5, at 3 (setting forth this fact). See Response at 3 (not disputing this fact). Martin “refused to obey Defendant Padilla's instructions.” Motion ¶ 6, at 3 (setting forth this fact). See Response at 3 (not disputing this fact). Despite his failure to sit down, Martin never exhibited any signs of aggression, never wielded a weapon, kept his hands in plain sight, and repeatedly attempted to have a dialogue with Padilla. See Response ¶ 2, at 3 (setting forth this fact).³

Padilla then attempted to arrest Martin without warning him that he was doing so, leading to a physical altercation. See Motion ¶ 7, at 3 (setting forth this fact).⁴

Padilla pushed Martin into the side of Martin's vehicle. See Response ¶ 3, at 3 (setting forth this fact).⁵ Immediately after Padilla pushed Martin into the vehicle, they engaged in a physical struggle and Martin yelled, “Don't kick me in the nuts mother-fu* * * *.” Motion ¶ 8, at 3 (setting forth this fact). See Response ¶ 2, at 3 (not disputing this fact).⁶ The video evidence does not show Padilla kicking or striking Martin's groin area. See Motion ¶ 9, at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 3 (not disputing this fact). Nevertheless, after pushing Martin into the vehicle, Martin clutched his groin area and exclaimed: “You kicked me in the nuts!” Response ¶ 4, at 4 (setting forth this fact).⁷ Padilla then threw Martin face-first into the pavement as he yelled: “Get on the ground!” See Response ¶ 5, at 4 (setting forth this fact).⁸ Padilla arrested Martin, “accusing him of various misdemeanor offenses,”⁹ and booked him in the Metropolitan Detention Center. Complaint ¶ 18, at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 7, at 4 (setting forth this fact); City's Answer ¶ 18, at 3 (not disputing this fact).

Several hours later, after being released from the Metropolitan Detention Center, Martin went to Presbyterian Hospital to address his “testicular pain, discoloration and swelling.” Response ¶ 8, at 4 (setting forth this fact).¹⁰ Later in the day, a doctor found that Martin's “left testicle was completely ruptured and consisted of dead tissue and surgically removed the testicle.” Response ¶ 9, at 4 (setting forth this fact).¹¹ In June 2014, Martin visited a dermatologist to cure the abrasions on his face that he obtained when Padilla threw him onto the pavement. See Response ¶ 10, at 4 (setting forth this fact).¹² One month later, “the dermatologist performed a procedure to remove asphalt and other debris from under the skin on Mr. Martin's head and face.” Response ¶ 10, at 4 (setting forth this fact).¹³

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Martin filed his Complaint in the County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico. See Complaint at 1. Martin alleges seven causes of action. First, he asserts that Padilla's use of excessive force violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Complaint ¶¶ 33–40, at 5–6. Second, he alleges that Padilla committed a battery for which he can recover under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA § 41–4–12. See Complaint ¶¶ 41–47, at 5. Third, he contends that the City of Albuquerque violated § 1983 when it “fostered a culture of violence and excessive force,” “failed to properly train and supervise APD officers regarding the use of force,” and failed to prevent “the culture of excessive force at APD, which caused Plaintiff's injury.” Complaint ¶¶ 49–59, at 6–7. Fourth, Martin asserts that Padilla violated his rights to Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. See Complaint ¶¶ 60–65, at 7–8. Fifth, Martin alleges a false arrest claim under the Fourth Amendment. See Complaint ¶¶ 66–71, at 8. Sixth, Martin contends that the City of Albuquerque's negligence led to Padilla's battery. See Complaint ¶¶ 72–80, at 8–9. Seventh, Martin asserts that Padilla “intentionally and in bad faith destroyed a video recording of his attack on the Plaintiff,” thereby spoliating evidence. Complaint ¶¶ 81–83, at 9. He seeks relief other than a money judgment in addition to monetary relief exceeding $25,000.00. See Court–Annexed Arbitration Certification, filed November 6, 2014 (Doc. 1–3).

The City of Albuquerque removed the case to federal court on November 6, 2014. See Defendants' Notice of Removal, filed November 6, 2014 (Doc. 1) (“Notice of Removal”). The City of Albuquerque asserts that, because the Complaint sets forth a claim arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Notice of Removal ¶ 4, at 1–2. The City of Albuquerque answered Martin's Complaint on November 17, 2014. See City's Answer at 1. It denies the majority of the Complaint's allegations and asserts affirmative defenses. See City's Answer at 8–12. Padilla answered Martin's Complaint on November 24, 2014. See Padilla's Answer. Padilla denied the majority of the Complaint's allegations and alleges affirmative defenses. See Padilla's Answer at 7–9.

Padilla filed the Motion on April 10, 2015. He seeks summary judgment under rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Martin's excessive-use-of-force claim in the Complaint's Count I. See Motion at 1. Padilla argues that he used reasonable force to arrest Martin because: (i) Martin admitted to “driving while intoxicated;” (ii) Martin failed to follow Padilla's commands, so he posed a safety risk to officers and drivers; and (iii) Martin “actively resisted being handcuffed and taken into custody.” Motion at 7. Thus, Padilla argues that he used “only the amount of force needed to effectuate the arrest of the Plaintiff.” Motion at 7.

Martin responded to Padilla's Motion on April 24, 2015. See Response at 1. Martin maintains that Padilla is not entitled to qualified immunity because his “right to be free from excessive force was clearly established.” Response at 5. He argues that he need not show “clearly established law that a severe strike to the genitals is unconstitutional, but only that unreasonable use of force was prohibited by law prior to the incident in question.” Response at 5. Next, he asserts that Padilla's actions were not reasonable. See Response at 5–6. In the alternative, Martin urges the Court to “defer its ruling and allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct discovery to further establish that Officer Padilla's actions were not reasonable.” Response at 7.

Padilla replied to Martin's Response on May 7, 2015. See Defendant Padilla's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to his Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed May 7, 2015 (Doc. 33)(“Reply”). Padilla maintains that his actions were “objectively reasonable,” because a reasonable officer facing an “intoxicated, combative individual who was resisting arrest” could have concluded that the individual was unwilling to listen to anything h...