Pina-Rodriquez v. Burroughs
| Decision Date | 11 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION CAUSE NUMBER 2:13-CV-124-J |
| Parties | JAIRO PINA-RODRIQUEZ, PLAINTIFF, v. HEMPHILL COUNTY SHERIFF MORSE BURROUGHS, CHIEF DEPUTY JAMES PEARSON, DEPUTY JOSE A. RAMOS, and HEMPHILL COUNTY JUDGE GEORGE BRIANT, DEFENDANTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Plaintiff Jairo Pina-Rodriquez filed this lawsuit in state court against Hemphill County officials claiming that they violated his civil rights with respect to so-called United States Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) documents known as "ICE holds." Plaintiff's state lawsuit was removed to this Court. Defendants have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b) for dismissal of all of the Plaintiff's claims which are asserted against them in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff has filed no response in opposition to either of those motions, and the time for him to do so has long expired. For the following reasons, Defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part as follows.
The federal rules require that a pleading need only furnish a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Rule 12(b)(1) & (6) motions therefore function to test the formal sufficiency of a complaint against the liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8. In analyzing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464,467 (5th Cir. 2004).To survive, "the plaintiff must plead 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,205 (5th Cir. 2007)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Katrina Canal, 495 F.3d at 205 (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965).
Although a court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the e l ement s of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Id. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has a l l eged-but it has not ' show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief."' Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2)).
Plaintiff Pina-Rodriquez filed his original state-court petition listing numerous claims and causes of action against the four Defendants. After removal he did not file an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that he is a Mexican national who was arrested in Hemphill County, Texas, at least four times for driving without a valid license, and at least once for recklessly engaging in conduct that placed another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, a class A misdemeanor violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.05(a) punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine. Plaintiff does not allege that he did have a valid driver's license. Plaintiff does not allege that there was not probable cause of any of his arrests, or that he was innocent of any criminal charges brought against him.
Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he became an "easy 'target'" of the Hemphill County Sheriff's Department. Plaintiff complains that because he was "a Latino," instead of being issued a ticket he was "routinely stopped for pre-texual reasons and checked for no driver's license, arrested, incarcerated," and later released on bond. Plaintiff alleges that at some point the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed a "verbal ICE hold" upon him, perhaps followed up by a written ICE hold form, and thereafter he was not allowed to be released on perhaps one or two, or more, of his new criminal cash bonds.
Plaintiff complains that he was released from county jail into ICE custody, returned for one or more occasions for one or more of his criminal pre-trial hearings and/or trials, but eventually deported from the United States. The record in this case states that he currently resides in Mexico, and is not able to return legally into the United Sates without legal permission from the federal government, which he has been unable to obtain. In this civil rights suit, Plaintiff seeks between $200,000 and $1,000,000 in actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs against the Defendants, plus declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff's claims overlap insofar as he seeks recovery for the same wrongs under more than one theory of law.
Defendants are the county judge, county sheriff, chief deputy, and a deputy sheriff of Hemphill County, Texas. No federal agency or agent is a party to this suit. All of the Plaintiff's claims involve personal interactions with him in the performance of the Defendants' official duties. County judge Briant and sheriff Burroughs are sued in both their official and individual capacities. The capacities in which chief deputy Pearson and deputy Ramos are sued is not stated in Plaintiff's petition.
The first instance sued upon involved chief deputy Pearson's May 29, 2011, interview of Pina at Pina's parents' home. See Plaintiff s original petition at ¶¶ 14 & 15. Plaintiff complains that deputyPearson went to the home at 10:30 pm to interview Pina, was informed that Pina had an attorney on one or more of his then-pending criminal charges, and that Pearson thereafter terminated the interview.
The second instance involved a June 2, 2011, interrogation by deputy Ramos at the sheriff's department. See petition at ¶¶ 16-17. Plaintiff complains that Ramos gave him a Miranda warning in Spanish, not in English, and then interrogated Pina in English without the assistance of a Spanish translator or Pina's attorney. Plaintiff states that he entered the United States as a 10-year old child. He does not state his current age, but presumably is old enough to drive an automobile and speaks some English.
Plaintiff complains that when Pina informed Deputy Ramos that he did not understand all of the questions in English and "requested that he be allowed to contact his attorney," "Ramos ignored the comments and continued to question Pina in English." Id. Plaintiff does not allege that he invoked his right to refuse to answer Ramos' questions without his attorney being present, that he informed Ramos that he was exercising his right to remain silent but was questioned nonetheless, or that he informed Ramos that he wanted to wait to answer any further questions until he had consulted his attorney but Ramos refused to wait and continued questioning him. Plaintiff does not seek in this lawsuit to suppress any of the non-custodial statements he made to Ramos on this date, or any earlier statements he had made to Pearson. Plaintiff does not allege that he sought in his state court criminal actions to suppress any such statements. Plaintiff does not plead whether any of those state criminal actions are, or are not, still pending, and does not reveal any of his criminal cases' outcomes.
The third instance involved Sheriff Burroughs' June 8, 2011, execution of an arrest warrant for recklessly engaging in conduct that placed another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, the alleged class A misdemeanor violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.05(a). See petition at ¶¶ 18-19.Plaintiff complains that on the day of his arrest sheriff Burroughs "denied Pina the right to execute or post a bail bond of $2500 because ICE 'allegedly' had issued an I-247 Form to the Hemphill County Jail in the name of Pina," but neither Pina or his attorney received a copy of the I-247 Form at the time, even though a copy of the form was apparently then requested by Pina's attorney. Presumably that referenced form is a written "ICE hold" form. Plaintiff does not explain how or why he had an alleged right to release on June 8, 2011, the day of this arrest.
The fourth alleged violation of Plaintiff's rights allegedly occurred on June 9, 2011, the date after his reckless conduct arrest, when some unnamed person at "the Hemphill County Sheriff Department denied Pina a phone call to his attorney." Plaintiff complains that he "was repeatedly denied the right to a phone call to his attorney Hall after Pina was incarcerated in the Hemphill County Jail and detained with the I-247 Form," even though "Pina did not request a court-appointed attorney." See petition at ¶¶ 19-20. Plaintiff alleges in earlier paragraphs that his attorney was aware of his arrests and was in communication with the sheriff's office regarding his release on bond on his June 8, 2011, arrest. Plaintiff appears to allege a violation of a constitutional right of in-custody pre-trial detainees to call their attorney from the jail whenever they want. It is unclear what the relevance, if any, is of his "non-request of a court-appointed attorney" allegation.
The fifth alleged violation of Plaintiff s rights allegedly occurred occurred on June 8, 2011, when sheriff Burroughs did not did not "allow Pina to post a $2500 bail bond because of the I-247 Form," even though "on or about June 10, 2011, attorney Hall placed the Defendants on notice that the I-247 Form was not a federal arrest warrant." See petition at ¶¶ 21,...
To continue reading
Request your trial