Rosales v. Bradshaw

• Decision Date: 17 November 2021
• Docket Number: CIV 20-0751 JB/JHR
• Parties: MARIO ROSALES, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BRADSHAW, in his individual and official capacity, and SHERIFF BRITT SNYDER, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

MARIO ROSALES, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BRADSHAW, in his individual and official capacity, and SHERIFF BRITT SNYDER, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.

No. CIV 20-0751 JB/JHR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 17, 2021

Patrick McMahon Heidel, S amber son, Cox & McMahon Lovington, New Mexico and Michael Newell Christan Quiroz Newell Law Firm Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Daniel J. Macke Brown Law Firm Rio Rancho, New Mexico Attorney for Defendant David Bradshaw

Brandon Huss David Roman Mark Drebing New Mexico Association of Counties Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Britt Snyder

Michael Dickman Law Office of Michael Dickman Santa Fe, New Mexico Attorney for Intervenor Board of County Commissioners of Chaves County

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Chaves' Opposed Motion to Intervene, filed July 27, 2020 (Doc 5)(“Motion to Intervene”); and (ii) Defendant David Bradshaw's Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and on Other Grounds, filed August 25, 2020 (Doc. 20)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Intervene on September 8, 2020, see Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed September 8, 2020 (Doc. 24); a hearing on the MTD on September 14, 2020, see Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed September 14, 2020 (Doc. 27); and another hearing on the MTD on September 23, 2020, see Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed September 23, 2020 (Doc. 37). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should permit Board of County Commissioners of the County of Chaves to intervene either as of right or permissively under rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because Chaves County has a statutory obligation to cover the liability for torts and civil rights violations of public employees acting in the scope of their duties and Bradshaw has no incentive to argue that Bradshaw was not acting in the scope of his duties; (ii) whether Bradshaw acted under color of law when he pulled his unmarked truck up to Plaintiff Mario Rosales' residence, blocking Rosales in his driveway, threatened Rosales with his firearm, and told Rosales he would ticket him; (iii) whether Bradshaw is entitled to qualified immunity, because (a) Bradshaw did not violate Rosales' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when Bradshaw pointed in a threatening manner his firearm at Rosales, who had a firearm in his pants pocket; or (b) Bradshaw did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights; and (iv) whether Bradshaw committed assault and battery under New Mexico law by pointing his firearm at Rosales in a threatening manner. The Court concludes that: (i) Chaves County is permitted to intervene both as of right and permissively, because no other remaining party adequately represents its substantial interest, and its defense shares a common question of fact and law with the existing parties; (ii) Bradshaw acted under color of law, because his conduct has a direct relationship to the performance of his public duties; (iii) Bradshaw is entitled to qualified immunity, because (a) although Bradshaw's use of force was objectively unreasonable, given that Rosales kept his hands away from his firearm, was calm, and complied with Bradshaw's commands, (b) Bradshaw did not violate Rosales' clearly established rights, because Rosales was armed when Bradshaw held him at gunpoint; and (iv) the Court will remand this case, and the remaining state law claims of assault and battery, to Chaves County Fifth Judicial District Court, New Mexico, because there are no remaining federal issues before the Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes the facts from Rosales' First Amended Complaint, filed July 24, 2020 (Doc. 1-1). The Court accepts the factual allegations as true for the purposes of the MTD. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1141 (10th Cir. 2012)(concluding that a court accepts “all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grants all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor”). The Court does not, however, accept as true the legal conclusions within the First Amended Complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”).

1. Background and the Parties.

This case arises from an altercation between Rosales and Bradshaw on March 18, 2018. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 7-46, at 3-7. Rosales is a resident of Chaves County, New Mexico. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 1, at 2. At the time of the incident, Bradshaw was also a resident of Chaves County. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 2, at 2. At the time of the incident, Chaves County employed Bradshaw as a Chaves County Sheriff's Office (“CCSO”) Sheriff's Deputy. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 2, at 2. At the time of the incident, Defendant Britt Snyder was Chaves County Sheriff. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 2, at 2.

2. The March 18, 2018 Altercation.

On March 18, 2018, Rosales was driving south on North Washington Avenue in Roswell, New Mexico, on his way to his residence. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 7, at 3. Rosales was driving behind a black Ford pickup truck that was driven by Bradshaw. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, at 3. Bradshaw owned the black Ford pickup truck. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 8, at 3. After driving past 19th Street, Rosales overtook and passed Bradshaw. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 9, at 3. Bradshaw took “great offense” when Rosales passed him. First Amended Complaint ¶ 9, at 3. Bradshaw then began to follow Rosales. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 10, at 3. Rosales started taking a series of turns without using his turn signal to determine whether Bradshaw was following him. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 3. Bradshaw continued following Rosales as Rosales was making the turns. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 3.

While Bradshaw followed Rosales, he called a fellow CCSO Deputy, Rebecca Chavez, and asked her to run Rosales' license plate number. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 3. Chavez told Bradshaw the residence associated with the license plate number. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 12, at 3. Chavez told Bradshaw that it appeared that Rosales was heading home. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 12, at 3. Bradshaw told Chavez that he did not want her to come to his location. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 13, at 4. Chavez decided to ignore Bradshaw's request, because Bradshaw had a reputation at CCSO for having a violent temper, and, based on her training and experience, Chavez had a “gut feeling” that she should go to Rosales' residence. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 14-15, at 3-4.

Before Chavez arrived, Rosales arrived at his residence, parked in the driveway, and waited inside his vehicle. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 16, at 4. Seconds later, Bradshaw arrived at Rosales' residence. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 17, at 4. Bradshaw parked so that his truck blocked Rosales' driveway, preventing Rosales from leaving. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 17, at 4. Afraid to exit his vehicle, Rosales first grabbed his handgun from his car and tucked it in his pants pocket, leaving the handle of the gun visible. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 18, at 3.

When Rosales stepped outside of his car, Bradshaw started yelling at Rosales and cursing at him in a “loud, threatening, and abusive manner.” See First Amended Complaint ¶ 19, at 4. When Rosales tried to talk to Bradshaw in a reasonable manner, Bradshaw continued to yell at Rosales. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 20, at 4. When Bradshaw started making comments about Rosales' handgun, Rosales stated that New Mexico is an open carry state, that he was exercising his rights, and that he was on private property. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 21, at 4.

Rosales walked a little closer to Bradshaw to talk in a normal tone of voice, while keeping his hands clear of his handgun. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 22, at 4. Bradshaw stated that he was Officer Bradshaw and threatened Rosales with a reckless driving citation. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 23, at 4. Bradshaw stated that he had contacted another CCSO officer. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 23, at 4. As Rosales and Bradshaw were talking, Bradshaw pulled out a revolver and pointed it at Rosales in a threatening manner. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 24, at 5.

When a gust of wind blew Rosales' shirt over his handgun, Bradshaw yelled “now that's concealed carry, ” and raised his gun at Rosales. First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25-26, at 5. When Bradshaw pointed his gun at Rosales, Rosales feared that Bradshaw was going to shoot him. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 26, at 5. Rosales put his hands in the air and backed away. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 27, at 5. As Rosales was backing away from Bradshaw, Rosales noticed the top of a child's head in the passenger seat of Bradshaw's pickup truck. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 28, at 5.

Rosales continued trying to reason with Bradshaw; however, Bradshaw stated he would not talk to Rosales until he first placed his handgun in his vehicle. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 29, at 5. Rosales then placed his handgun in the car. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 30, at 5. At that point, Bradshaw exited his pickup truck, wearing a long sleeve t-shirt, shorts, and flip flops. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 31, at 5. None of Bradshaw's clothing displayed CCSO insignia. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 31, at 5. Bradshaw asked for Rosales' license. See First Amended Complaint ¶ 32, at 5. Bradshaw also asked Rosales if ...