McDowell v. Rio Rancho Police Dep't

• Decision Date: 19 January 2022
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00153 RB/KK
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Parties: JOHN M. MCDOWELL, JR., Plaintiff, v. RIO RANCHO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a Municipal Agency, CITY OF RIO RANCHO, a Municipality, OFFICER RICHARD ROMERO, Personally, and Individually and John Does, in Their Individual Capacity, Defendants.

JOHN M. MCDOWELL, JR., Plaintiff, v. RIO RANCHO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a Municipal Agency, CITY OF RIO RANCHO, a Municipality, OFFICER RICHARD ROMERO, Personally, and Individually and John Does, in Their Individual Capacity, Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00153 RB/KK

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

January 19, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT C. BRACK, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

James Chavez was murdered in July 2011. Defendant Richard Romero led an 18-month investigation into the murder and eventually obtained an arrest warrant for Plaintiff John M “Jack” McDowell. McDowell was arrested, tried and found guilty of Chavez's murder in 2013. On appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. McDowell was acquitted after the second trial.

McDowell filed suit against Romero, the Rio Rancho Police Department (RRPD), and the City of Rio Rancho. The Court previously granted summary judgment to Defendants on McDowell's state law claims. Defendants now move for summary judgment on the federal claims: wrongful conviction (Count I); false arrest (Count II); false imprisonment (Count III); and excessive force (Count VIII). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the motion.

I. Legal Standards

A. Summary Judgment Standard

“Summary judgment is proper if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Halley v. Huckaby, 902 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 1347 (2019) (citing McCoy v. Meyers, 887 F.3d 1034, 1044 (10th Cir. 2018)). A fact is “material” if it could influence the determination of the suit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute over a material fact is “genuine” if a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict for either party. Id. “The movant bears the initial burden of ‘show[ing] that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'” Tanner v. San Juan Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 864 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1106 (D.N.M. 2012) (quoting Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991)) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “Once the movant meets this burden, rule 56 requires the non-moving party to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256). A party cannot “avoid summary judgment by repeating conclusory opinions, allegations unsupported by specific facts, or speculation.” Id. at 1107 (quotation and citation omitted). Instead, the non-moving party must come forward with “sufficient evidence on which the factfinder could reasonably find” in their favor. Id. (citations omitted). Evidence that is “merely colorable, ” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, or consists only of “[unsubstantiated allegations[, ]” McCoy, 887 F.3d at 1044, is insufficient.

B. Relevant Local Rules

Pursuant to Local Rule 56, the party moving for summary judgment “must set out a concise statement of all of the material facts as to which the movant contends no genuine issue exists.” D.N.M. LR-Civ. 56(b). The movant must number the facts “and must refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the movant relies.” Id. In return, the non-moving party must also provide “a concise statement of the material facts . . . as to which the non-movant contends a genuine issue does exist. Each fact in dispute must be numbered, must refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the non-movant relies, and must state the number of the movant's fact that is disputed.” Id. “All material facts set forth in the Memorandum will be deemed undisputed unless specifically controverted.” Id. (emphasis added).

Defendants provide a lengthy statement of Undisputed Material Facts (UMF). (See Doc. 41 at 2-23.) McDowell neither relies on the record nor submits evidence to controvert Defendants' factual assertions and instead “restates . . . each and every allegation contained in the second amended complaint . . . as [his] undisputed facts.” (Doc. 46 at 2.) McDowell's amended complaint is not verified. (See Doc. 25.) Were it verified, the Court could have treated it “as an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment if it satisfie[d] the standards for affidavits set out in [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56].” Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1311 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 792 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). Because it is not, his “restatement” of the allegations does not create a genuine dispute of fact. As McDowell does not refer to the record to dispute Defendants' factual assertions, he fails to specifically controvert them. Consequently, the Court deems those facts undisputed and adopts Defendants' recitation of the facts. The Court recounts only those facts necessary to its decision on Defendants' motion.

II. Statement of Facts

On July 10, 2011, at 1:31a.m., the Sandoval County Regional Emergency Communications Center received an anonymous 911 call from a person who stated, “[s]omeone came into my friend's house and I think he's dead. I don't know what they did to him .... I think they killed him.” (Docs. 41-1 at 1-2; 41-1A at 34.) Officers responded to the house at 93 Idaho Creek Drive (the “Chavez House”) and found James Chavez (Chavez) deceased due to multiple stab wounds. (Docs. 41-1 at 2, 5; 41-1F at 51-52.) The last known residents of the Chavez House were Chavez and his ex-wife, Catherine Pavelski Chavez (Catherine Chavez). (Doc. 41-1 at 2-3.)

Romero, the on-call detective, responded to the call. (Id. at 2.) He “learned from the officers on scene that . . . Chavez had recently been released from jail and was attempting to move back into the residence[, ] . . . that there was a possible feud” about the Chavez House between Chavez and his ex-wife, and that Catherine Chavez's boyfriend, John “Blade” McDowell, ^[1] “had reportedly been making threats against . . . Chavez.” (Id. at 2-3.) Chavez filed a report in June 2011 and stated that John “Blade” McDowell “threatened his life with a firearm.” (Id. at 3.) “Chavez reported that John ‘Blade' McDowell held him at gunpoint, called Catherine Chavez, who told John ‘Blade' McDowell to shoot . . . Chavez.” (Id.) John “Blade” McDowell did not shoot Chavez. (Id.)

Romero obtained a warrant to search the premises. (Id.) The search revealed that “the pockets of [Chavez's] jeans had been turned inside out as if someone had rummaged through them.” (Id. at 4.) Officers found two rubber bra inserts, one lying next to Chavez and one in his pocket. (Id.) Officers saw a kitchen table “broken and laying on its side [that] appeared to have been broken in a struggle.” (Id. at 5.) Chavez had a large gash below his “left wrist that appeared to be defensive ....” (Id.; Doc. 41-1F at 51-52.) The autopsy listed the cause and manner of death as homicide ....” (Docs. 41-1 at 5; 41-1F at 49.)

On July 10, 2011, RRPD Sergeant Brian Thacker interviewed Michelle Decker. (See Doc. 41-1G at 53.) Decker believed Catherine Chavez and John “Blade” McDowell were responsible for Chavez's death. (Id.) She stated that she had her hair done by Catherine Chavez. (Id. at 54.) Catherine Chavez asked Decker “if she knew where James Chavez was, that she would be happy to be rid of him, and that when John [‘Blade'] McDowell found him, James Chavez would be dead.” (Id.) Decker provided contact information for Amanda Newby, who she said also had information about Chavez's death. (Id.)

Romero interviewed Amanda Newby, who asserted that “she was in a relationship with James Chavez for three years.” (Doc. 41-1 at 9.) She stated that when “Chavez was released from jail, Catherine Chavez began harassing [Newby] through her friend, Michelle Decker, over a guitar James Chavez stole from John ‘Blade' McDowell.” (Id.) She stated that Catherine Chavez and John “Blade” McDowell “were looking for James Chavez ” (Id.) On the evening of July 10, 2011, Casey Williams called Newby and “told her that she was present when James Chavez was murdered.” (Id.) Williams told her that “an older man with two younger men” came to the Chavez House on motorcycles, “cornered James Chavez in the kitchen[, ] and told [Williams] to get in the garage while they took her phone.” (Id. at 9-10.) Williams “heard one of the men say . . . ‘you stole from me . . . and now I'm going to kill you.'” (Id. at 10.) “She heard James Chavez reply, ‘I got it, I got it, I'll give you everything back, I got it.'” (Id.) The men then killed Chavez. (Id.) Newby “believed John ‘Blade' McDowell's father was involved in the murder and that his name was Jack McDowell.” (Id.) Jack McDowell is the plaintiff in this lawsuit. Newby “described Jack McDowell as a retired police officer and a member of the Black Berets motorcycle club, a branch of the Bandidos.” (Id.)

Romero first interviewed Catherine Chavez on July 11, 2011. (See Doc. 41-1H at 55.) She stated that she had no knowledge of Chavez's death. (Id.) She asserted that she and John “Blade” McDowell went to his mother's house the evening of July 9, stayed the night there, and did not wake up until the morning of July 10. (Id. at 57, 63.)

Romero located Williams and her boyfriend, David Dinelli, on July 11, 2011. (Doc. 41-1 at 11; see also Doc. 41-1I at 94.) Williams stated that Chavez was her friend, and she and Dinelli were at the Chavez House to help Chavez clean on July 10, 2011. (Doc. 41-1I at 95.) Three men, one holding a double-barrel shotgun, came into the Chavez House. (Id.) The men told Williams and Dinelli to run. (Id.) Dinelli jumped out a window, but...