Zelaya v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 2:13-cv-01181-JAD-CWH
| Decision Date | 19 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2:13-cv-01181-JAD-CWH |
| Parties | Ima Iliu Flores Zelaya, et al., Plaintiffs v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Order denying plaintiff Flores-Zelaya's motion for partial summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denying plaintiffs' request for oral argument
Luis Solano, a pretrial detainee in the psychiatric unit of the Clark County Detention Center ("CCDC"), died after he was forcibly restrained by four corrections officers. Solano's heirs and estate sue the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("Metro"), which runs the CCDC; former Sheriff Gillespie; and the four correctional officers, claiming that Solano died from positional asphyxiation—a known risk of the type of weight-bearing restraint these officers employed—and they bring a host of federal civil-rights and state-law tort claims. The officers contend they enjoy qualified immunity from the suit.
Both sides move for summary judgment. The plaintiffs seek summary judgment only on their excessive-force claim and the officers' qualified-immunity defense, and they ask for a hearing; defendants move for summary judgment in their favor on all claims. I find these motions suitable for disposition without a hearing.1 Because there is a material dispute about what the officers did when they restrained Solano, I deny summary judgment on plaintiffs' excessive-force claim, the qualified-immunity issue, and plaintiffs' claims against Metro and the officers for assault, battery, negligence, and wrongful death. I find that the plaintiffs have not met their burden to offer evidence to support their other claims, so I grant summary judgment in defendants' favor on all remaining claims.
On January 21, 2013, Solano was arrested for trafficking cocaine, booked at the CCDC, and examined by a doctor and psychiatrist in accordance with the center's standard procedures.2 One month later, Solano filed a request for medical care stating, 3 A nurse responded with the note: 4
Two days later, a nurse was called to Solano's cell5 and found the pretrial detainee, who had allegedly been disobedient and disruptive, sitting in a chair in handcuffs.6 Solano reported thoughts of harming others.7 The nurse later testified that Solano was "polite" but had "this bizarre . . . very bewildered look on his face."8 She evaluated him and transferred him to the detention center's psychiatric unit.9 Solano was transferred that day.
Approximately three hours after his arrival in the psychiatric unit, Solano and the other inmates were released from their cells into a common area for free time.10 Correctional officers Temple, Gray, and Dixon watched from a protected area called "the bubble."11 The officersimmediately noticed that Solano was acting strangely.12 Gray testified in his deposition that Solano "was acting erratic and a little bit different";13 Temple testified that Solano entered the common area "being loud, disrupting the unit, [and] yelling."14 Solano "was ordering [other inmates] to do things that they did not want to do."15
Temple became concerned for the safety of other inmates and ordered Solano to "calm down."16 When that failed, Temple exited the bubble to speak with Solano.17 Temple had hoped that, by exiting the bubble, entering the module, and issuing additional verbal commands, Solano would calm down.18 Temple was mistaken.19 His actions had no effect; Solano continued to yell and act strangely.20 Temple called his supervisor, Sergeant Aspiazu, for assistance.21
Aspiazu responded immediately and noticed the Solano had impermissibly crossed a red line separating the common area from the bubble.22 Solano was visibly anxious and knocking on the bubble's glass partition; Aspiazu believed that Solano wanted to talk.23 Aspiazu testified that this behavior was not abnormal: 24 Aspiazu ordered Solano to return to his cell; but Solano refused.25 Aspiazu ordered Temple, Dixon, and Gray to follow him into the module.26
What happened next is less clear. Aspiazu testified at his deposition that Solano moved toward the officers in an attempt to exit the common area through the bubble's door and that he was yelling "open the fucking door" and saying something about the water.27 But surveillance footage appears to show Solano back away from the officers when they entered the module's common area.28 And plaintiffs argue that Solano was initially compliant with the officers' commands when they entered the common area.
Either way, the officers apparently perceived a threat and decided to place Solano in handcuffs from a standing position.29 A struggle ensued: the four officers surrounded Solano and attempted to restrain him, but Solano resisted, and the group moved around the room.30 About 20 seconds later, the officers took Solano—who was yelling "no, fuck no"—to the ground.31 The struggle continued for approximately three minutes.32 One officer was able to get one of Solano's hands cuffed; but Solano allegedly freed the cuffed wrist and swung the cuff as a weapon.33
The four officers eventually subdued and fully restrained Solano. Aspiazu testified that he was the only officer who placed his body weight on Solano and that the other three officersrestrained Solano's arms, sides, and legs.34 But handheld camera footage—which begins after Solano was fully retrained—shows a different set of facts:35 as many as all four officers appear to have their body weight on Solano (mostly on his torso), who is laying prone with his legs folded up behind him, and Solano is non-responsive and appears lifeless.36
CPR was eventually initiated, and Solano was transported to a nearby hospital. Although he had a pulse, Solano never regained consciousness. He died seven days later.37 Solano's death certificate lists "positional asphyxia due to, or as a consequence of, police restraint procedures" as Solano's cause of death.38
Plaintiffs Ima Iliu Flores-Zelaya and Elia Delcarmen Solano-Patricio are the Special Co-administrators of Solano's estate, and they bring this action on behalf of Solano's estate and his heirs.39 They sue Metro; the CCDC's contracted medical provider Naphcare, Inc.40; former Metro Sheriff Gillespie; and Metro correctional officers Aspiazu, Temple, Dixon, and Gray. They allege four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: excessive force, deliberate indifference to Solano's serious medical needs, violation of Solano's children's substantive due-process right to their father's companionship, and a Monell claim.41 Plaintiffs also allege state-law claims for assault, battery,negligence, negligent training and supervision, and wrongful death.42
The parties now cross-move for summary judgment.43 Plaintiff Solano-Patricio seeks summary judgment in her favor on just two issues: (1) Aspiazu, Temple, Dixon, and Gray's liability for her § 1983 excessive-force claim; and (2) these four corrections officers' qualified-immunity defense.44 The corrections officers, Sheriff Gillespie, and Metro oppose the motion and move for summary judgment on all claims against them and on the officers' qualified-immunity defense.45 Both plaintiffs separately oppose the defendants' motion, and Flores-Zelaya also joins in Solano-Patricio's opposition.46 I now consider each argument, find that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in either side's favor on the excessive-force claim, the officers' qualified-immunity defense, and the assault, battery, negligence, and wrongful-death claims against Metro and the officers. I grant summary judgment in defendants' favor on all other claims.
The legal standard governing the parties' motions is well settled: a party is entitled to summary judgment when "the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."47 An issue is "genuine" if the evidencewould permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.48 A fact is "material" if it could affect the outcome of the case.49
When considering a motion for summary judgment, I view all facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.50 The purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims"51 and to determine whether a case "is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law."52 It is not my role to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations.53 If reasonable minds could differ on material facts, summary judgment is inappropriate.54
If the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."55 The nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts"; the nonmoving party "must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that" there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find in his favor.56 When reviewing the parties' papers,I only consider properly authenticated, admissible evidence.57
Plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial