Reitz v. Woods
| Decision Date | 02 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-0181-BU |
| Parties | ROBERT STEVEN REITZ, Plaintiff, v. JIMMY WOODS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
On September 4, 2015, at approximately 2:15 p.m., the Abilene Police Department 911 call center received two back-to-back phone calls from an unidentified male using a blocked phone number. In the first call, the caller reported, "I just shot my girlfriend." And then added, "I used a 9 mm to shoot my girlfriend right in the f*cking eye." When asked by the dispatcher for his address, the caller provided a street address to an Abilene apartment complex, an apartment building number within that complex, and an apartment number. The dispatcher lost contact with the caller after trying in vain to get the caller to identify himself or provide his phone number. But within minutes, the caller phoned back and said, He also reported that in addition to the 9 mm handgun, he had a 12-gauge shotgun and an M-16 rifle. When the dispatcher asked if he was inside the apartment, he acknowledged that he was and replied,
Multiple officers from the APD responded to the apartment. Given the exigent circumstances involving a reported gunshot victim, a SWAT team made a forced entry into the apartment. Once inside, the officers discovered that there was no gunshot victim or other emergency. The sole occupants of the apartment were the plaintiff, Robert Steven (Bobby) Reitz, and his dog. The only gun found by the officers was a Sig Sauer pellet gun.
When questioned by police officers, Reitz denied knowledge of the 911 calls and appears that day to have cooperated with the investigation of the incident. Following an on-scene investigation, Reitz was taken by Officer Jimmy Woods, the primary officer on the scene, to the Abilene police station, known as the Law Enforcement Center.
Once at the LEC, Reitz consented to a search of his cell phone and an APD agent attempted to download the phone's contents using a CelleBrite digital forensics system. The download did not yield anything of evidentiary value, other than the fact that the non-emergency telephone number for the APD was saved twice in Reitz's phone. However, the agent was unable to download Reitz's call history due to either the phone's age or its operating system. Ultimately, the forensic analysis failed to yield conclusive evidence whether Reitz had recently called 911.
Woods, having insufficient evidence to continue holding Reitz, returned him to his apartment.
Approximately two weeks later, Reitz returned to the LEC to obtain a copy of the police report. While there, he happened to meet a news reporter with the local KTAB television station. The reporter recalled the September 4 events and asked Reitz if he wouldallow her to do a story about those events. Reitz agreed to cooperate with the reporter and eventually submitted to an interview. Part of Reitz's claims in this lawsuit are that the APD officers, fearing negative publicity for their roles in the September 4 events, tried to suppress the KTAB news story by threatening Reitz with prosecution if he did not cooperate in killing the story.
The KTAB news story aired on October 13, 2015, in both televised and on-line versions. Approximately two weeks later, following further investigation of the September 4 events by the APD, led by Detective John R. Wilson, Reitz was charged with a Class A misdemeanor offense of making a false alarm or report based on the 911 calls.1 The charging document for this offense was a probable cause affidavit signed by Larry Tatum, an Investigator with the Taylor County District Attorney's Office. Wilson arrested Reitz on that charge on October 28, 2015. However, the case was later dismissed by the DA's Office after further investigation cast more doubt on whether Reitz made the 911 calls.
Reitz filed this lawsuit against Woods, Wilson, Tatum, and Taylor County for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All of the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment which have been fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 73-78, 89-91, 96-98, 101-02, 105.
Because the parties have consented to the magistrate judge conducting all further proceedings in this case (see Dkt. Nos. 46, 86, 106), the undersigned has full authorityunder 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to issue a final judgment.
After considering the motions, briefing, summary judgment evidence, applicable law, and oral arguments of the parties, the Court grants Defendants' motions and dismisses all claims against them.
Reitz initially filed this lawsuit against the City of Abilene, Woods, Wilson, and Tatum. See Dkt. No. 1. Following various motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 19), Reitz amended his Complaint (see Dkt. No. 21), which led to further motions to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 26-28. After considering those latter motions, the Court dismissed all claims against the City and select claims against the other defendants, including an excessive force claim against Woods and all claims against Woods and Wilson brought against them in their official capacities. See Dkt. Nos. 39-40.3
Reitz later filed a Second Amended Complaint (see Dkt. Nos. 58, 59) and the Court eventually accepted a Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 67), which remains Reitz'soperative pleading. See Dkt. No. 87.4 Through that pleading, Reitz sues Woods, Wilson, Tatum, and Taylor County for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 67 at 2-5. Reitz sues the defendant officers in their individual capacities and sues Taylor County under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (). See id. at 3 n.2. Reitz also seeks declaratory relief against all defendants. Dkt. No. 67 at 101-02.
More specifically, Reitz sues Woods for unconstitutionally detaining and arresting him on September 4, 2015, for attempting to intimidate him into not cooperating with the news reporter, and for covering up police misconduct in connection with the September 4 events. Id. ¶ 59(b)-(c).
Reitz sues Wilson for unlawfully arresting him on October 28, 2015, for taking actions leading to his arrest on phony charges in retaliation for his cooperation with the KTAB news story, and for attempting to cover up police misconduct. Id. ¶ 60(b)-(c).
Reitz sues Tatum for failing to properly investigate the contents of the probable cause affidavit he signed and for "swearing to a false affidavit" that led to Reitz's arrest on October 28, 2015. Id. ¶ 61(a)-(c).
Reitz further claims that all three officers acted "in a manner that was negligent and not in conformity with the standard of conduct to be expected of a reasonable lawenforcement officer." Id. ¶¶ 59(a)-(c), 60(a), 61(a)-(c). Reitz also alleges that Wilson and Tatum were "grossly negligent." Id. ¶¶ 60(a), 61(a)-(c).
Reitz sues Taylor County under a municipal-liability theory under Monell for Tatum's signing of the allegedly false affidavit in accordance with an unconstitutional policy, practice, and procedure of the County, and because the County, through the DA's Office, ratified his allegedly unconstitutional conduct. Id. ¶ 62(a)-(d). Reitz further alleges that in maintaining unconstitutional policies, Taylor County "was negligent, and grossly negligent, and acting in a manner not in conformity with the standard of conduct to be expected of a reasonable law enforcement office or agency." Id. ¶ 62(b).
Woods, Wilson, and Tatum argue that Reitz's claims are barred by qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 73 at 1; Dkt. No. 76 at 1. Tatum and Taylor County argue that there is no evidence to establish one or more elements of Reitz's claims. Dkt. No. 73 at 1; Dkt. No. 89 at 1.
On March 23, 2021, the Court held a non-evidentiary hearing and received oral argument on the summary judgment motions. See Dkt. Nos. 110, 111.
Reitz grew up and currently resides in New Jersey. However, at all times relevant to this case, he lived in the Abilene apartment where the September 4 events took place. Dkt. No. 96-2 at 76. As previously noted, the APD 911 call center received two phone callson September 4, 2015, at approximately 2:15 p.m., from an unidentified man using a blocked phone number. Recordings of those calls are included in the summary judgment record. See Dkt. No. 78-1 at 1. Although the identity of the 911 caller remains unknown to this day, Reitz's apartment address, building number, and apartment number were specifically identified by the 911 caller as his address. See id. at 1, 8-9, 34.
Woods was among several officers dispatched to Reitz's apartment complex in response to the 911 calls. Upon arriving, he joined other officers in creating a perimeter around the apartment building. Id. at 46.
It appears undisputed that the officers believed that a person's life was in immediate danger inside the apartment.6 See id. at 8-9, 45, 106, 115-16. Given those exigent circumstances, the APD SWAT team made a forced entry into the apartment without a warrant. Id. at 104. As stated above, officers found Reitz inside the apartment, but no gunshot victim or weapon other than the Sig Sauer pellet gun. Id. at 8-9; 23-24.
Woods remained on the perimeter during the forced entry and did not enter the apartment with the SWAT team. Id. at 46. Wilson, as a detective in APD's Crimes Against Persons Division, had not yet been assigned to the case and was not present at the scene that day. Id. at 42.
After the SWAT team made entry into Reitz's apartment, Officer Austin Graves...
To continue reading
Request your trial