Aleman v. City of Charlotte

80 F.4th 264

Azucena Zamorano ALEMAN, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Ruben Galindo Chavez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; David Guerra, individually and officially, Defendants-Appellees, and Courtney Suggs, individually and officially, Defendant.

No. 21-2223

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Argued: December 7, 2022

Decided: August 16, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00491-RJC-DCK).

ARGUED: S. Luke Largess, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lori R. Keeton, LAW OFFICERS OF LORI KEETON, Charlotte, North Carolina; Roger A. McCalman, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Brian R. Hochman, Bradley W. Butler, BUTLER, QUINN & HOCHMAN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence E. Matherson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee City of Charlotte.

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge King wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Judge Keenan joined. Judge Richardson wrote a dissenting opinion.

KING, Circuit Judge:

This civil action on appeal from the Western District of North Carolina arises from the September 2017 fatal police shooting of Ruben Galindo Chavez (who used the surname "Galindo") during an encounter with officers of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. The action was initiated by plaintiff Azucena Zamorano Aleman — Galindo's girlfriend and the mother of his child — both as the administrator of Galindo's estate and in her individual capacity. The plaintiff's five causes of action include a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendant David Guerra, the police officer who fired the lethal shots, for use of excessive force in violation of Galindo's Fourth Amendment rights, plus the following state law claims: a claim against Guerra for assault and battery; claims against both Guerra and the City of Charlotte for wrongful death caused by negligence and for negligent infliction of emotional distress; and a claim against the City alone for negligent police officer training.

After amassing an assortment of evidence during discovery, including video footage from body cameras worn by the officers present at the shooting scene, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For reasons outlined in its Order of September 2021, the district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on each of the plaintiff's claims. See Aleman v. City of Charlotte, No. 3:19-cv-00491, 2021 WL 4495907 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2021), ECF No. 50 (the "Opinion"). The court therein determined that — because it was objectively reasonable for Officer Guerra to shoot Galindo, in that Galindo posed an immediate threat to Guerra and others — Guerra is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. For the same reason, the court awarded summary judgment to Guerra and the City on the assault and battery, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Citing a lack of sufficient evidence, the court also awarded summary judgment to the City on the negligent training claim.

The appeal now being pursued by the plaintiff presents several close questions on the facts and applicable law, against a backdrop of tragic and dangerous circumstances. As we recently acknowledged in another fatal police shooting case, "[i]t is not lost on us that we issue this decision from the calm of a courthouse" and that, "[u]nlike us, [the defendant officer] could not press pause or rewind before determining whether [the decedent] posed an imminent threat." See Franklin v. City of Charlotte, 64 F.4th 519, 539 (4th Cir. 2023). Upon careful consideration of the video footage and the other evidence in the record, we are satisfied to affirm the district court's summary judgment award to the City on the negligent training claim. On the other hand, we vacate the award of qualified immunity to Officer Guerra on the Fourth Amendment claim, as well as the related summary judgment awards to Guerra and the City on the balance of the state law claims. Rather than directing the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff on any of those claims, we remand for further proceedings as to all of them.

I.

A.

The plaintiff initiated this action in August 2019 in a state court in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and the defendants removed the matter in September 2019 to the Western District of North Carolina. Of the plaintiff's five causes of action, four were asserted on behalf of Galindo's estate: the Fourth Amendment and assault and battery claims against Officer Guerra; the wrongful death claim against Guerra and the City of Charlotte; and the negligent training claim against the City. The plaintiff alleged the remaining cause of action — the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against Guerra and the City — on her own behalf.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery proceedings, securing not only the video footage from the body cameras worn by Officer Guerra and the other police officers present at the shooting scene, but also copies of relevant 911 dispatch records, depositions of Guerra and his colleagues, and records of the officers' interviews during the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department's internal investigation of the shooting. In addition, the parties presented expert witnesses on the reasonableness of Guerra's actions and the adequacy of the City's police officer training.

By their respective summary judgment motions, Officer Guerra and the City requested judgment as to all the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment sought only a partial judgment, on the Fourth Amendment, assault and battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

1.

As the plaintiff has highlighted in the summary judgment proceedings, the record reflects that at the time of the September 2017 shooting, Galindo was a 30-year-old Mexican man who worked in the Charlotte area and did not speak English.¹ He had recently been diagnosed with paranoia, without being deemed a danger to himself or others. Galindo was facing North Carolina charges of misdemeanor assault by pointing a firearm and simple assault, but he had no other known history of criminal activity.

a.

(1)

On September 6, 2017, at about 9:04 p.m., Galindo placed the first of two 911 calls seeking assistance from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. To accommodate Galindo, that call was transferred to a Spanish-speaking dispatcher available through the Department's Spanish language phone line. During the call, which lasted approximately 18 minutes, Galindo said that he sought to turn himself in for impending court proceedings and that he wanted police officers to pick him up at his apartment, located at 1918 Prospect Drive, in Charlotte. Galindo also gave the following reason for requesting the officers: "Because I have a gun in my hand." See J.A. 243.²

When asked by the dispatcher what he was "going to do with the gun," Galindo responded with the query, "Are you going to help me or are you not going to help me?" See J.A. 243. Pressed about his intentions, Galindo said that the dispatcher should "tell me if [the officers] are coming or not so that I can put my firearm there in the front or whatever," suggesting that he intended to surrender the firearm. Id. at 244.

Meanwhile, Galindo repeatedly failed to provide information expressly requested by the dispatcher, including whether he was suicidal or homicidal. Some of Galindo's remarks to the dispatcher evidenced his paranoia. For example, Galindo first claimed his name was "El Dios Estrella" (which translates to "the Star God"), before giving the name "Ruben Galindo." See J.A. 244-45. He complained of police officers and other people "following me," and he said that "I can't take it any longer." Id. at 245. Galindo also admitting to drinking alcohol that day but denied using drugs.

Throughout the first 911 call, Galindo asked whether he was going to receive any help, prompting the dispatcher to periodically assure him that police officers were on the way. At one point, having heard a woman's voice in the background, the dispatcher asked Galindo how many people were in his apartment. Galindo did not provide that information. Rather, he answered: "Look, I only need [the officers] to come for me[.] It's only for me [and] I will be outside of the apartment." See J.A. 245. Galindo elaborated, "I only need the police to come for me, for them to take me." Id. He also requested that a responding officer be "someone that speaks Spanish." Id.

Near the end of the first 911 call, the dispatcher elicited from Galindo that he was still inside the apartment but would go outside once the police officers were there. When specifically asked if he was "thinking of harming the officers" or "anyone in [his] house," Galindo responded, "No." See J.A. 246. He again expressed that "I want to turn myself in" and that "I prefer for [the officers] to lock me up." Id. The dispatcher's last statement to Galindo during the call was that "the officers are in route, they are on their way and they will be there as soon as possible, thank you." Id. Galindo responded before the call was disconnected, "Are they coming or not because [I] can't take it anymore." Id.

(2)

A few minutes later, Galindo placed his second 911 call, which lasted for nearly 12 minutes and remained connected until after the fatal shooting. During that call, Galindo and the Spanish-speaking dispatcher mainly discussed Galindo's firearm. At the outset, Galindo said that the firearm was "[i]n my bag" and that "if you want I will take it out." See J.A. 247. The dispatcher then repeatedly instructed Galindo to leave the firearm in a safe...