Spencer v. Rau

• Decision Date: 11 October 2007
• Docket Number: No. SA-06-CA-760-RF.,SA-06-CA-760-RF.
• Citation: Spencer v. Rau, 542 F.Supp.2d 583 (W.D. Tex. 2007)
• Parties: Frederick SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. Thomas RAU, Individually and in his Official Capacity; and Michael Muniz, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

542 F.Supp.2d 583

Frederick SPENCER, Plaintiff, v.Thomas RAU, Individually and in his Official Capacity; and Michael Muniz, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants.

No. SA-06-CA-760-RF.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division.

October 11, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Christopher J. Gale, Gale, Wilson, & Sanchez P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff.

Shawn K. Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROYAL FURGESON, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Police Officer Michael Muniz("Officer Muniz") and Defendant Police Officer Thomas Rau's ("Officer Rau")(collectively, "Officers")Motion for Summary Judgment(DocketNo. 29), filed July 23, 2007(which, incorporates the Officers' Motions for Summary Judgment pursuant to local rule CV-12(DocketNos. 6 and 7), filed November 15, 2006); Plaintiffs Response thereto (DocketNo. 40); and the Reply, filed by the Officers.After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment(DocketNo. 29) should be GRANTED.

Summary

This case arises from an unfortunate turn of events involving three well-intentioned public servants who stopped on the middle of the highway late at night to render aid to strangers.Plaintiff is retired from the military and a registered nurse and Defendants are two San Antonio police officers.All were headed home at 2:30 a.m. after their respective shifts when they came upon a car accident.Although Plaintiff stopped on the highway as a Good Samaritan, an argument with the Officers ensued.Unfortunately, the situation quickly spiraled out of control as tempers heated and the parties found themselves in a situation that likely would not have occurred under normal circumstances.

After refusing to leave the scene of the accident and shoving and breaking free from the Officers' attempt to make an arrest, Plaintiff was arrested for interfering with the duties of a police officer.Plaintiff then sued the Officers, alleging federal and state law claims.The Officers have moved for summary judgment based on qualified and official immunity.The events that transpired — while unfortunate — do not give rise to constitutional or state law violations.Under the circumstances, the Officers' conduct was not objectively unreasonable.Therefore, the Officers are entitled to qualified and official immunity and their Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

Factual and Procedural Background

Factual Summary

Taking all facts alleged in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the events of the morning of September 20, 2005 occurred as follows.After leaving work as a registered nurse, Plaintiff came upon the scene of a one-car accident while traveling down IH-35 at 2:30 a.m. Pl.'s Original Compl.at 3.Plaintiff noticed the vehicle had struck a concrete barrier in the middle of the highway and was now disabled in the far left lane.Id.Plaintiff observed several individuals standing outside of the disabled vehicle, parked his vehicle on the right side of the road, and crossed the interstate to see if any of the individuals needed medical assistance.Pl.'s Response to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 4.After determining the individuals were conscious and able to answer his questions, Plaintiff ushered the individuals out of the lanes of traffic so they would be safe.Id.Plaintiff returned to his vehicle parked across the Interstate to retrieve his cell phone to call 911 and inform emergency services of the accident.Id.The individuals involved in the one-car accident did not have serious or life-threatening injuries.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 3.

Before Plaintiff finished dialing 911, the Officers arrived on the scene and positioned their police cruiser directly behind the disabled vehicle in the left lane.Pl.'s Response to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.,at 4.The interstate was lit but still dark.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Muniz Aff.at 1.Because the interstate's shoulder between the left lane and traffic barrier is narrow, the patrol car remained in the left traveling lane.Id.The Officers turned their patrol car emergency lights on.Id.The Officers are trained to secure the safety of an accident scene before proceeding with an investigation and/or reporting the incident.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 3;Muniz Aff.at 1.

Although Plaintiff knew the individuals did not have serious injuries Plaintiff wanted to speak with the Officers to inform them of the situation.Id.However, before Plaintiff could make his attempt to cross the interstate, Officer Muniz "rudely demanded that Plaintiff return to his truck."Id.Upon exiting the vehicle Officer Rau went to the rear of the patrol car to obtain flares to close the left lanes of traffic.Id.Meanwhile, from across the interstate, the Officers ordered Plaintiff to stay in his truck and out of the roadway.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 4.However, Plaintiff believed he had a responsibility as a registered nurse.Id.Therefore, he crossed the interstate to further attend to the accident victims and relay information to the Officers in order to allow the Officers to better assess the situation and determine what action should be taken.Id. at 4-5.

After crossing the interstate, Plaintiff approached the Officers and identified himself as a nurse.Pl.'s Original Compl.at 3.Plaintiff asked the Officers for "their names and badge numbers and informed [them] that he did not appreciate the way they spoke to him...."Pl.'s Response to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 5.Officer Muniz provided the information and again told Plaintiff to get out of the road.Def.'s Mot, for Summ. J.at 4.Then, according to Plaintiff, "Officer Muniz began to lecture [him] about how unsafe it was for him to be crossing the highway."Id.Plaintiff was "flabbergasted by this statement" as Plaintiff felt he took "every precaution necessary to protect himself from the danger of crossing the highway...."Pl.'s Original Compl.at 3.Plaintiff informed Officer Muniz he was capable of assessing the danger of being in the roadway himself.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 4;DocketNo. 32, Ex. 1, 3.Specifically, while in the roadway with Officer Muniz, Plaintiff stated:

I am almost 51 years old with 21 years active duty prior to retiring, 13 years as a nurse with a portion of that in emergency medicine.I even did two years working as a volunteer on our neighborhood volunteer fire department.I am sure I understand safety and know how to keep myself safe.

Pl.'s Response, Ex. 3at 1.

As Plaintiff was talking with Officer Muniz about safety, Officer Rau began to yell at the Plaintiff that Plaintiff needed to return to his vehicle.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 4.Officer Muniz was attempting to get out of the roadway.Id.Plaintiff yelled back and stated "I will when I'm ready after I finish speaking with your partner."Pl.'s Response to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 3at 2.Without warning, Officer Rau "lunged at Plaintiff and grabbed his left arm".Id. at 5."As a reflex, Plaintiff broke free of [Officer] Rau's grip ... shove[d] him away," and pulled his arm away.Id.,Ex. 3at 1;Pl.'s Original Compl.at 4.Officer Muniz pulled Officer Rau and Plaintiff away from the middle lane of traffic as they struggled.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 5.After Plaintiff broke free, Officer Rau again lunged at Plaintiff and grabbed Plaintiffs right arm.Pl.'s Response to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 5.This time Plaintiff did not resist as Officer Rau applied an arm bar technique, placed Plaintiffs arms behind his back, cuffed him, and placed Plaintiff under arrest for interfering with the duties of a public servant.Id.

Immediately after Plaintiff was cuffed, the Officers stopped using force.Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 5.The Officers placed Plaintiff inside the patrol car and arrested him.Ten days later on September 30, 2005, the charges were dismissed.Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.at 5.Plaintiff asserts that as a result of the Officers' actions, he sustained soft tissue injuries.Id.

Procedural Summary

Plaintiff files this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the laws of the state of Texas.Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:(1) the Officers falsely arrested and imprisoned Plaintiff such that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment;(2) the Officers used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment;(3) the Officers failed to intervene to stop the application of excessive force; and (4) the Officers maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff.In addition, Plaintiff makes the following claims under the laws of the state of Texas(1) false arrest and imprisonment; (2) assault and battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) malicious prosecution.Plaintiffs Original Compl.at 5-12.Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.Pl.'s Original Compl.at 13.

The Officers timely filed their Motions to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment(DocketNos. 6 and 7) to preserve their defense of qualified immunity in accordance with the Local Rules of the Western District of Texas.¹See Local Rule CV-12.In their respective motions the Officers argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claims because they have qualified immunity.The Officers submit that there is no evidence Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated.Officers Muniz and Rau Mot. for Summ. J.Pursuant to Local Rulesat 2.

Additionally, the Officers contend all claims against them in their official capacity are redundant and should be dismissed because the same claims were brought against their employer the City of San Antonio.Id. at 6.Plaintiff contends the official capacity claims are proper and should not be dismissed for redundancy, and that summary judgment is not...