Uzomba v. City of San Antonio

• Decision Date: 06 May 2013
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. SA-12-CA-1193-XR
• Parties: PATRICK UZOMBA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF WILLIAM MCMANUS; OFFICER FNU SORRELL; SERGEANT FNU RAWSON; OFFICER FNU RAMOS; OFFICER FNU ARNOLD; OFFICER FNU DUPREE; OFFICER FNU DANIELS; OFFICER THOMAS SMITH; SERGEANT FNU GUZMAN; OFFICER FNU SALAZAR; UNKNOWN OFFICER WITH RANK OF LIEUTENANT; and "UNKNOWN SAPD, EAST SIDE OFFICERS;" Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

PATRICK UZOMBA, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF WILLIAM MCMANUS;

OFFICER FNU SORRELL; SERGEANT FNU RAWSON; OFFICER FNU RAMOS;

OFFICER FNU ARNOLD; OFFICER FNU DUPREE; OFFICER FNU DANIELS; OFFICER THOMAS SMITH;

SERGEANT FNU GUZMAN; OFFICER FNU SALAZAR; UNKNOWN OFFICER WITH RANK

OF LIEUTENANT; and "UNKNOWN SAPD, EAST SIDE OFFICERS;" Defendants.

CIVIL NO. SA-12-CA-1193-XR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SIGNED: May 6, 2013

ORDER

This order addresses plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on a proposed civil rights complaint naming thirteen defendants.

I. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY and PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

A. This Case

Plaintiff Patrick Uzomba ("plaintiff" or "Uzomba") initiated this case on or about December 13, 2012, when plaintiff filed his sworn application for leave to proceed IFP and tendered hisproposed complaint.¹ Plaintiff's IFP application represents plaintiff is not employed; was last employed in March 2012 when he was "self" employed earning an amount(s) not specified; and has no money, no savings, and no assets.² At the time of initiating the suit, plaintiff was incarcerated at the Bexar County Adult Detention Center ("BCADC").³ On April 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a change of address form to indicate he had moved from the BCADC to a private residence address in San Antonio.⁴ Plaintiff provided no updated IFP affidavit or current statement as to his ability and intention to become employed or statement as to how he is supporting himself, now that he is no longer incarcerated.

Plaintiff's eleven-page handwritten complaint names thirteen defendants for various violations of plaintiff's constitutional rights spanning an uncertain period of time.⁵ The Court's February 1, 2013 order to show cause contained a rather detailed summary of plaintiff's allegations:

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff states he sued the city and Officer Ramsey Garcia in this Court, which the city settled. Plaintiff does not provide the cause number, but it was SA-08-CA-416. Plaintiff was appointed counsel in that case and in SA-09-CA-20.

Plaintiff claims Sorrell, Smith, and other officers at the East Side Substation were angry about the lawsuit. He states they vowed Plaintiff would not enjoy the money. He states an officer follows him around each shift - Sorrell on the first shift, Officer Dupree on the second shift, and Officer Thomas Smith on the third shift. He asserts they followed him and threatened people. They told people that Plaintiff sued the city and police. They harassed people and businesses that associated with Plaintiff.

Officer Thomas Smith was Ramsey Garcia's partner. Smith once toldPlaintiff, "You will die on this street one day probably by this gun."

Plaintiff contends the stops by the police were retaliatory. He claims the East Side substation officers had all questioned Plaintiff about the lawsuit and about when the settlement money was due. They vowed that Plaintiff would not enjoy the money and that they would not forget Officer Ramsey Garcia, one of the Defendants in the lawsuit.

On September 6, 2011, SAPD Officer Sorrell was arresting someone. Plaintiff and a friend walked to a store across the street from the arrest. The friend went into the store, and Plaintiff stayed outside. Sorrell left the arrested person handcuffed, and Sorrell ran across the street, pulling his gun and yelling. Sorrell grabbed Plaintiff, handcuffed Plaintiff, and shook Plaintiff. Sorrell took everything out of Plaintiff's pockets, and he took everything out of Plaintiff's wallet. Sorrell looked inside Plaintiff's pants and underwear. Plaintiff asserts Sorrell lacked probable cause and his actions were in retaliation for Plaintiff's suit against the city and Officer Garcia.

Plaintiff went to SAPD internal affairs to complain about Sorrell, but Sergeant Rawson refused to take the complaint. Rawson ordered Plaintiff out of the office. As Plaintiff got up to leave, Rawson came around the desk, and he used his stomach to bump and shove Plaintiff. Plaintiff walked to the door, and Rawson hit the back of Plaintiff's head with a closed fist.

Plaintiff complained about Sorrell and Rawson to an SAPD internal affairs lieutenant, but the lieutenant said the officers acted appropriately. Plaintiff complained to SAPD Chief McManus. He also condoned and approved the acts, stating the officers were doing their job and were trying to control drug trafficking on the East Side. Plaintiff asserts McManus and city have a deliberately indifferent policy of training police officers regarding the proper handling of arrestees. Plaintiff contends McManus failed to act, even though he had knowledge of the wrongs. Plaintiff states the city and McManus put in place and enforce unconstitutional ordinances regarding the stop and search of citizens for just standing, sitting, talking, and greeting each other.

In December 2011, SAPD Officer Ramos stopped and handcuffed Plaintiff without probable cause. Plaintiff was just walking on the sidewalk. The temperature was below freezing. Ramos removed most of Plaintiff's clothing and left Plaintiff standing barefoot and in his underwear for over forty-five minutes.

On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff parked his car in a motel parking lot. Two SAPD patrol cars pulled up. Officer Arnold ordered Plaintiff out of the [car] and immediately handcuffed him. Officers lacked probable cause, and they did not have a warrant. Arnold took everything out of Plaintiff's pockets. Arnold searched the car and took over $12,000 from a bank envelope, which Plaintiff states was from the lawsuit settlement check he had just cashed. Arnold strip-searched Plaintiff and left Plaintiff undressed in the cold for over thirty minutes. Arnold and other officers tore the car interior and ripped out some wires. Officers smashed an ipod, iphone, headsets, laptops, stereo systems, a bass guitar, and a musical keyboard. Arnold had the car towed because of no insurance. However, there was insurance. At theimpound yard, the [car] would not start, and it had to be towed away and repaired.

Also on February 1, 2012, hours after the incident in the motel parking lot and after Plaintiff recovered the car from the impound yard, Plaintiff was stopped by four or five other patrol cars. Officers searched Plaintiff and ripped up the car's interior, trunk, electric wire, electric seat, mirror, sunroof, the sound system, fenders, signal lights, hood, and the gas and brake pedals. Officers took over $14,000 and Plaintiff's ID. An officer took off the handcuffs and told Plaintiff he could leave. Plaintiff asked for his ID and money. He was told by officers he should leave before the officers arrested him and towed his car. He was also told that a lot worse could happen. The car was put back enough to drive at a speed of about twenty miles per hour. Plaintiff contends the East Side officers conspired to take Plaintiff's settlement money.

On February 5, 2012, Officer Daniels stopped and handcuffed Plaintiff. Daniels searched Plaintiff and his car. Daniels asked Plaintiff to work with SAPD to catch drug dealers, threatening to have Daniels's car towed if he did not agree to help. Daniels took Plaintiff's $3000, cellphones, ipod, laptop, eyeglasses, medication, bass guitar, amplifier, and other musical equipment. Plaintiff did not comply with Daniels's request, and Daniels had Plaintiff's car towed away.

On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff was in a car accident. He was put in an ambulance. Officer Dupree boarded the ambulance and searched Plaintiff's pockets. Dupree said he was looking for drugs and crack cocaine.

On August 25, 2012, Officer Smith paid a drug user to plant crack cocaine on Plaintiff. The informant left two crack pipes about eight feet from Plaintiff, and the informant kept the crack cocaine. Smith was disappointed and angry. He slapped Plaintiff's face. Smith falsely arrested Plaintiff for the crack pipe, and Smith later discovered that Plaintiff had a warrant for a traffic ticket. At the jail, Smith denied Plaintiff s medically prescribed walking cane and some of Plaintiff's medication. At the magistrate court, Smith loudly told everyone present how Plaintiff sued the city and Officer Garcia. Smith said he vowed not to forget. In response to a question from Plaintiff, Smith admitted the situation was personal and that it was a vendetta and a grudge.

Plaintiff contends that because of Smith, Detention Sergeant Guzman assaulted Plaintiff and denied medical treatment. Guzman inflicted injuries to Plaintiff's head, back, and knee. Guzman dragged Plaintiff across the floor.

On November 10, 2012, SAPD Officer Salazar stopped, handcuffed, and searched Plaintiff without probable cause. Apparently, Plaintiff was out of jail by then.

Plaintiff also contends the city is deliberately indifferent about the conditions of water manholes and covers. He claims he stepped into a manhole in March 2012, he suffered serious injuries, and he was treated for three months. Plaintiff was told by the San Antonio Water System that SAWS workers do not always lock the manhole covers, and people steal the covers. Plaintiff has discovered that one out offive citizens suffer these injuries.⁶

The Court's nine-page order to show cause notified plaintiff of various grounds that would support the dismissal of his claims. At the threshold, the order notified plaintiff, who was then incarcerated, that his request to proceed IFP could be dismissed because more than three of plaintiff's prior civil actions or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim and plaintiff had not demonstrated he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury."⁷

The order to show cause also notified plaintiff that his claims might be barred by Heck v. Humphrey if his civil claims for damages related to charges that might be pending against him. The order specifically directed plaintif...