Tuggle v. City of Tulare
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-01525-JLT-SAB |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2023 |
| Parties | LETITIA TUGGLE, an individual; LETITIA TUGGLE as REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF QUINNTIN CASTRO; ROSA CUEVAS, an individual; CAMERON WARE, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF TULARE; MATT MACHADO; RYAN GARCIA; ANDY GARCIA; EDWARD PUENTE; DANIEL BRADLEY; DOES 1-20, Defendants. CITY OF TULARE; RYAN GARCIA, Counter-Claimants, v. LETITIA TUGGLE, as REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF QUINNTIN CASTRO; ROSA CUEVAS; CAMERON WARE, ROES 105, Counter-Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFFS TUGGLE, ESTATE OF QUINNTIN CASTRO, CUEVAS AND WARE; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF CUEVAS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COUNTERCLAIMS; ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALL STATE LAW CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS (DOC. 72, 73, 74)
The events of this case are tragic. In this civil rights action the shootout that ensued after a high-speed chase, resulted in the death of the driver, the death of a police K9, the permanent disability of one passenger and a career-ending injury of a police officer. At issue before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 72; Doc 73; Doc. 74). As set forth below, Defendants' motions for summary judgment against Plaintiffs' claims (Doc. 72; Doc. 73) are GRANTED. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims and counterclaims, and therefore, Cuevas's motion for summary judgment against the counterclaims (Doc. 74) is DENIED as moot.
On December 9, 2018, Rosa Cuevas drove Quinntin Castro to a house on O Street in Tulare, California, in her Mercury sedan.[1] (Doc. 85-2 at 33-34, ¶¶ 2-3.) Cuevas met Castro approximately two weeks before, and they were getting to know each other. (Id.) Cuevas was new to Tulare, single, and interested in making new friends. (Id.) After Cuevas dropped Castro off at a house on O Street, she ran some errands. (Id.) Cuevas noticed Castro left his backpack in the car, and she placed it in her trunk for safekeeping without opening it.[2] (Doc. 87-1 at 4, ¶ 5.) At approximately 7:00 p.m., Cuevas returned to pick up Castro, and Cameron Ware was with him. (Id. at 4-5, ¶¶ 5-9.) Cuevas agreed to give Ware a ride at Castro's request, but she asked Castro to drive because she was unfamiliar with the area. (Id.)
Tulare Police Department Officer Bradley observed Castro roll through a stop sign, which is a minor traffic violation. (Doc. 85-2 at 34, ¶ 5.) Officer Bradley did not pull Castro over because rolling through a stop sign is a common occurrence and this conduct did not raise Officer Bradley's suspicion. (Id. at 34, ¶ 6.) However, when Bradley observed Castro take a sharp left turn without using a blinker and roll through another stop sign, Bradley decided to follow and contacted dispatch, who confirmed the vehicle was properly registered to Cuevas. (Id. at 34, ¶ 7.) When Castro pulled into a residential driveway, Bradley initiated a traffic stop. (Id. at 35, ¶ 8.) Bradley noticed two passengers in the car, one in the front seat and one in the back seat and informed dispatch of this information. (Id. at 35, ¶ 9.) Castro did not comply with Officer Bradley's signals to remain stopped and drove across the lawns of multiple residences to flee from the traffic stop. (Id. at 35, ¶ 11.) Bradley pursued Castro's vehicle and radioed for backup. (Id. at 35, ¶ 9.) Sgt. Garcia, Officer Garcia, and Officer Puente responded and joined the pursuit. (Id. at 37, ¶ 22.)
The high-speed pursuit came to an end when Castro skidded off the roadway and into an embankment next to an open field. (Doc. 85-2 at 4, ¶ 4.) After Castro came to a stop in the mud, he began to rev the engine, causing the tires to spin. (Id. at 40, ¶ 35.) Defendants contend that the revving of the engine and spinning of the tires caused Sgt. Garcia to fear that the vehicle would gain traction and Castro would accelerate into Officer Bradley, who was behind the vehicle (Id. at 7-8, ¶ 6), though the car did not again move from this location during the following events.[3] The officers yelled at Castro to turn off the engine and exit the vehicle, but they did not and the revving of the engine may have made them unable to hear the commands. (Doc. 85-2 at 6, ¶ 5.) Sgt. Garcia decided to break the driver's window with his baton to better communicate with the occupants. (Id. at 16-17, ¶ 11; Id. at 42, ¶ 50.)
After Sgt. Garcia broke the window, Castro stopped revving the car's engine. (Doc. 79-2 at 253) During the following 15 to 30 seconds, Officer Garcia gave several warnings that a police dog would be deployed if Castro did not comply. (Id.) Officers Puente and Garcia testified that Officer Garcia gave these commands as he approached the car and indicated that he would deploy his police K9, if they did not comply.[4] (Doc. 79-2 at 280, 299.) Officer Garcia testified that after Sgt. Garcia broke the window, he “continued yelling commands, and [he] told the driver that if he did not stop, that I was going to send the dog, and [Officer Garcia] repeatedly said that.” (Doc. 80-11 at 4) Officer Garcia then inserted his police K9 into the driver's side window. (Doc. 85-2 at 17-19, ¶¶ 12-14.) In response, Castro shot the dog at least three times (Doc. 79-5 at 49) and shot Officer Garcia one or two times using a 40-caliber handgun.[5] Id. at 29, 49)
Upon seeing Officer Garcia was shot, Sgt. Garcia fired at least 17 times toward the car. (Doc. 85-2 at 21-24, ¶ 16.) The ballistic evidence and expert reports demonstrate that Sgt. Garcia stepped toward the back of and along the length of the car while shooting. (Id.) The ballistic evidence suggests that Sgt. Garcia fired through the front and rear driver's side windows, and some shots traveled in the direction of the front passenger. (Id.)
Officer Bradley fired several rounds at the vehicle. (Doc. 85-2 at 24-25, ¶ 17.) He testified that he aimed directly toward the driver's location and that he was aiming at the location where he thought the shots from inside the car had originated. (Doc. 79-2 at 185.) Officer Puente also fired several rounds at the vehicle. (Doc. 85-2 at 25, ¶ 18.) Officer Puente testified that he aimed “more towards the driver's side of the vehicle, since that's where I saw the gunshots come from.” (Doc. 72-7 at 4)
Though the defendants assert that they all aimed solely at the drivers' side of the car (Doc. 85 at 6), at least two bullets were shot through either the driver's window or through the rear driver's side window in Cuevas' direction. (Doc. 79-5 at 58.) The officers fired a total of 34 rounds into the vehicle. (Doc. 85-2 at 46, ¶ 68.) Afterward, Castro exited the vehicle through the passenger side and fired towards the officers. (Id. at 27-29, ¶¶ 20-22.) The officers did not return gunfire, and Castro collapsed shortly after firing his second round. (Id.)
Castro died due to his bullet wounds. (Doc. 85-2 at 46, ¶ 68.) Cuevas sustained gunshot wounds to her left shoulder and left chest and to her head. (Id.) Cuevas's injuries required multiple surgeries, including a tracheostomy, a thoracotomy, and a pacemaker implantation, and she required a feeding tube for two years. (Id. at 53, ¶ 99.) Cuevas continues to suffer from severe left facial and vocal cord paralysis, hearing loss, vision impairment, fainting episodes, and limited mobility; she is permanently disabled and relies on home health services for daily needs. (Id.) Ware did not sustain any physical injuries from the incident. (Doc. 82 at 10.) Officers Garcia's injuries ended his career as a police officer, and his K9 partner was killed. (Doc. 17 at 4, ¶ 11; Doc. 72 at 10.)
On October 27, 2019, Letitia Tuggle, on behalf of herself and on behalf of Castro's estate, Ware, and Cuevas filed a complaint against the City of Tulare, Police Chief Matt Machado, and, as amended, against Sgt. Andy Garcia, Officer Ryan Garcia, Officer Puente, and Officer Bradley. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs' claims include violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, includingMonell claims and supervisory liability claims, and state law claims for wrongful death, negligence, battery, and a Bane Act violation. (Id. at 1.) Defendants City of Tulare and Officer Ryan Garcia filed counterclaims against all Plaintiffs for negligence, negligence per se, assault and battery, equitable contribution, and as amended, conversion. (Doc. 4.) Following several amended pleadings, the parties' causes of action chiefly remain the same. (Docs. 8, 17, 22, 51.)
During litigation, a dispute arose between Tuggle, Ware, and Defendants regarding Tuggle's and Ware's failure to respond to certain discovery requests. (See Doc. 57.) The presiding magistrate judge imposed monetary and evidentiary sanctions against Tuggle and Ware. (Id. at 37-39.) Ware did not disclose any information in response to Defendants' questions related to hisMonell claims. (Id. at 30-31.) Tuggle's responses to theMonell-related requests simply referred to the 2018 officer-involved shooting of Jontell Reedom and conclusory allegations regarding deficiencies in TPD's training policies. (Id. at 34-35.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge's evidentiary sanctions preclude Ware from introducing any evidence to support his Monell liability claims and prohibit Tuggle from offering Monell evidence claims, “beyond reference to an apparent ‘Reedom' officer-involved shooting and/or references to Tulare Police policies.” (Id. at 38.) The magistrate judge specified that if Cuevas introducedMonell evidence, it must be subject to a limiting instruction so as to not support Tuggle's or Ware's claims. (Id.)
Though the cases remain consolidated, Cuevas...
To continue reading
Request your trial