Roberts v. Bexar Cnty. Sheriff's Office Detective Jesus Ochoa
| Decision Date | 21 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. SA-14-CA-0080-XR |
| Parties | DANIEL A. ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETECTIVE JESUS OCHOA, ET. AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Plaintiff commenced this action pro se against numerous defendants who were allegedly involved in Plaintiff's false arrest on an aggravated kidnapping charge for which he was imprisoned for thirty-seven days. He also alleges that he was wrongfully denied compensation from a state crime victims' fund. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing certain time-barred and frivolous claims with prejudice and dismissing all other claims without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying or dismissing as moot any other motions or requests for relief. The Court accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed his original complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Doc. No. 1, 2. That court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but alsodirected him to file an amended complaint as there were jurisdiction and venue issues with his first complaint. Plaintiff did not cure all of the noted deficiencies, but provided additional information and objections to the ruling. Doc. Nos. 9, 10. The Magistrate Judge of that court then recommended that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for lack of proper venue and personal jurisdiction. Doc. No. 10. The District Judge subsequently transferred the case to this Court instead of dismissing the claims. Doc. No. 14.
After the transfer, Plaintiff filed a motion for service of process on February 13, 2014. Doc. No. 15. Magistrate Judge Mathy entered a show cause order on February 25, 2014, identifying numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff's proposed complaint and ordering Plaintiff to amend his complaint. Doc. No. 17. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on April 21, 2014. Doc. Nos. 23, 24. The first amended complaint identifies six named defendants and 164 un-named defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion on May 5, 2014 to disregard the former plea for service of process and filed a motion not to forewarn Defendants of the pending lawsuit. Doc. Nos. 25, 26. The Magistrate Judge issued her Memorandum and Recommendations on May 7, 2014. Doc. No. 27. Plaintiff has requested leave to file a second amended complaint. Doc. No. 31. He has raised no specific objections to the Memorandum and Recommendations, but the Court will nevertheless conduct a de novo review.
Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that he was assaulted by a hitchhiker in January 2011. Doc. No. 23 at 4-5 ¶¶ 9-12. Plaintiff alleges that when officers from the Bexar County Sheriff's Office ("BCSO") arrived at the scene, they failed to adequately catalog evidence andfailed to arrest Plaintiff's attacker. Id. at 6 ¶ 17-27. Plaintiff further claims that the description of the attack in the officers' report was incorrect. Id. at 5 ¶ 14. The report states that Plaintiff's assailant claimed that Plaintiff groped him. Id. at 5 ¶ 18. Plaintiff, however, does not specify which officers drew up the report or responded to his 9-1-1 call. Plaintiff states that he suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the attack. Id. at 5 ¶ 11.
After several attempts at contacting the BCSO regarding his attack, Plaintiff was contacted by Detective Jesus Ochoa. Id. at 7 ¶ 38. Detective Ochoa allegedly told Plaintiff that his assailant was released and no evidence was gathered. Id. at 8 ¶ 47. On January 24, Plaintiff left a message with the FBI about alleged corruption in the BCSO. Id. ¶ 52. On February 2, 2011 Plaintiff was interrogated by Det. Ochoa. Id. at 9 ¶ 57. Plaintiff alleges that Det. Ochoa accused him of "grabbing the assailant" and refused Plaintiff's request for CSI to inspect Plaintiff's car. Id. ¶¶ 59-64. Plaintiff also alleges that Det. Ochoa called the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation Fund and told them that Plaintiff was "in on it" in regard to the attack. Id. ¶ 67. Plaintiff claims that, as a result, the Fund did not pay his hospital bill or living expenses. Id. Plaintiff alleges that in discussing the matter with Det. Ochoa, the Crime Victims' Fund violated its own policies. Id. ¶ 68. On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff's initial application to the Crime Victims' Fund was denied. Id. at 10 ¶ 72.
When Plaintiff continued to investigate what he suspected was corruption at the BCSO, he allegedly had conversations with Det. Ochoa wherein Det. Ochoa claimed that Plaintiff had fabricated evidence of the previous assault and that Det. Ochoa had access to Plaintiff's emails. Id. at 9 ¶ 64. Plaintiff alleges that Det. Ochoa continued to impede his efforts to investigate the police officers' conduct. Id. at 10 ¶ 76-84. Plaintiff filed a complaint with theTexas Attorney General, Victims of Crime Division on March 16, 2011. Id. at 11 ¶ 97. Plaintiff left messages with the FBI and DOJ in March. Id. ¶¶ 88, 98-99. Plaintiff alleges that he was told in early May that BCSO Internal Affairs would handle his complaint against Det. Ochoa. Id. at 12 ¶ 111.
Plaintiff alleges that on May 28, 2011, Det. Ochoa secured a warrant without probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest for the charge of aggravated kidnapping. Id. at 12 ¶ 115. Plaintiff alleges that an unknown Bexar County DA helped (or instructed) Det. Ochoa to prepare the warrant that allegedly lacked probable cause on its face. Id. ¶ 154. Plaintiff allegedly also received threatening phone calls from Det. Ochoa following his complaint to Internal Affairs. Id. ¶ 113. Plaintiff's complaint further notes that Octavia Thompson, an employee of the Texas Crime Victims' Fund received his letter putting forth evidence of the BCSO's corruption. Id. at 12 ¶ 110. Plaintiff's appeal to the Fund was ultimately denied. Id. at; 14 ¶ 124. Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 21, 2011, he received a call allegedly from the Victims' Fund asking to meet and provide evidence. Id. at 12 ¶ 117.
Plaintiff claims the following occurred on or after June 26, 2011: Plaintiff alleges that when he went to meet the Fund representative he was "rushed upon by four plain-clothed [federal] officers" and arrested pursuant to the aforementioned warrant, but he does not name the officers involved in his arrest. Id. at 13 ¶ 120. Plaintiff claims that all agencies involved in the arrest show a consistent pattern of hiring unqualified personnel and then failing to supervise or train them, and identifies former Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz as a corrupt official in the BCSO. Id. Plaintiff cites to articles in which Ortiz is accused of corruption, but does not name any other actors involved in the alleged conspiracy, and does not provide any case-specific facts involving Ortiz. See id. Plaintiff states that he was placed in a "felony cell" in the Bexar County Jail. Id. at 14 ¶ 123.
Plaintiff claims that his landlady was put in contact with Det. Ochoa following his arrest and incarceration, and that the Detective instructed her to dispose of Plaintiff's belongings because Plaintiff had been "out kidnapping." Id. at 14 ¶¶ 127-28. Plaintiff states that his landlady kept his belonging, however. Upon being released from jail on bond on August 5, 2011, id. at 15 ¶ 147, Plaintiff claims to have received calls from a withheld number and notes that calls he previously received from Det. Ochoa were from a withheld number. Id. ¶ 151. Plaintiff discovered that his case had been "rejected pending further investigation" on November 15, 2011, and that an internet link to a video of his arrest now leads to a blank page. Id. ¶¶ 155-58. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 26, 2013.
Plaintiff has brought claims against six named defendants in his first amended complaint: Bexar County Sheriff's Office Detective Jesus Ochoa, in his individual and official capacities; Former Bexar County Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz, in his individual and official capacities; Bexar County Jail, in its official capacity; San Antonio Federal Marshal "Arresting Officer #1, 2992 Medina," in his individual capacity; San Antonio Federal Marshal "Arresting Officer #2, 0772 Blockly," in his individual capacity; Employee of the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, Octavia Thompson, in her individual capacity. Doc. No. 23 at 17-18.
Plaintiff also lists as defendants "Actors 1-164, inclusive" but does not state sufficient facts to identify the additional potential defendants, other than an unnamed Bexar County DA, nor has he provided any information about which claims he wants to bring against them; hestates that they "are to be sued for damages in their individual capacity and their official capacity." Doc. No. 23 at 18.
Plaintiff has brought five different "State Law" claims and four "Constitutional Law" claims, as laid out in his first amended complaint. Plaintiff's claims are as follows:
Plaintiff's State Law Claims:
3. Negligent Misrepresentation against Arresting Officer Medina, Arresting Officer Blockly, and Octavia Thompson
4. Defamation against Detective Jesus Ochoa and Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz
5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against all named defendants
Plaintiff's Constitutional Law Claims:
4. 42 U.S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial