Harris v. City of Texico

1

NICOLE HARRIS and PAULA ASHLEY, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF TEXICO, a New Mexico incorporated municipality; DOUGLAS BOWMAN, Chief of Police for the City of Texico; CHRISTINA VANNATTA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of CHARLES BRYAN VANNATTA, deceased, formerly a police officer with the City of Texico; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF CURRY; SONNY WILCOX, a deputy sheriff employed by the County of Curry; and BRIAN STOVER, Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District Attorney, Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-454 KRS/GBW

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

March 6, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KEVIN R. SWEAZEA UNITED STAGES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss and for Qualified Immunity filed by Defendants The City of Texico Douglas Bowman, and Christina Vannatta, Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Bryan Vannatta deceased (“City Defendants” or “Defendants”), filed July 13, 2022. (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss on August 31, 2022, and the City Defendants filed a reply on October 21, 2022. (Docs. 27 and 34). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(c), the parties consented to the undersigned to conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter and to enter a final judgment. (Docs. 7, 10-14). Having considered the parties' briefing, record of the case, and relevant law the Court grants in part and denies in part the City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

For the purpose of ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court assumes that the following facts, taken from Plaintiffs' complaint, are true. See Mayfield v. Bethards, 826 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2016) (“In reviewing a motion to dismiss, [the Court] accept[s] the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”). Plaintiffs allege that on January 23, 2020, Plaintiff Harris called 911 and, during that call, her cell phone battery died and the call was disconnected. (Doc. 1-5) at 6 (Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint). Plaintiff Harris was calling to report that a witness in a civil matter she was involved in was in her parking lot and Plaintiff Harris was concerned about it. When the call dropped, Plaintiff Harris decided not to pursue the matter further. Id.

“About one (1) or two (2) hours” later, Defendant Vannatta went to Plaintiff Harris's apartment and looked into the windows. Plaintiff Ashley, who is Plaintiff Harris's mother, saw Defendant Vannatta looking through the windows of Plaintiff Harris's apartment and “banging on the windows with his flashlight so hard that Ashley could see the windows vibrating and thought they were going to break.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff Ashley called the Curry County Sheriff's Department and asked for assistance. Defendants Bowman and Wilcox arrived to assist Defendant Vannatta. Plaintiff Ashley states that she argued with Defendant Bowman, and Defendant Bowman told her “if you bring your black ass out here again, I'm going to arrest you.” Id. Plaintiff Ashley further states that she “told Bowman and Vannatta that Harris had just left Ashley's apartment and that Harris was OK.” Id. Plaintiff Ashley “was keeping Harris' dog for her and when Ashley opened the door to her apartment to speak with the officers, the dog ran out.” Id. Defendants Bowman and Vannatta then asked Plaintiff Ashley for the key to Plaintiff Harris's apartment and, when Plaintiff Ashley told them she did not have a key, Defendant Bowman “then turned to Vannatta and said to ‘kick the fucking door.'” Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Vannatta then contacted Chief Deputy District Attorney Stover, “who advised Vannatta to breach Harris' door based on the justification of a ‘welfare check.'” Id.

Defendant Vannatta breached the door to Plaintiff Harris's apartment and Defendants Vannatta and Bowman entered the apartment with guns drawn. Id. at 8. Plaintiff Harris “was asleep in the apartment bedroom,” and was charged with “improper use of 911.” Id. Plaintiff Harris alleges that the charge for improper use of 911 resulted in the revocation of her conditions of release in another case and she was held without bond in the Curry County Detention Center for eight days. Id. at 9. Plaintiff Harris now is afraid of the police, and has continuing nightmares and PTSD as a result of this incident. Id. at 9-10.

In what Plaintiffs refer to as the “Second Incident,” after finding Plaintiff Harris in her apartment, Defendant Bowman “then again approached Ashley as she was standing outside her door.” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs state that “Wilcox recites in his incident report: ‘Nichole's mother attempted to run back into her apartment and slam the door. Chief Bowman shouldered his way into Nichole's mother's apartment.'” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs refer to an affidavit from an officer who worked with and for Defendant Bowman for about seventeen years, in which the officer recites multiple incidents of racism by Defendant Bowman. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiffs state that “[b]ecause Harris and Ashley are both black, and because Bowman is demonstrably what most people would likely refer to as a ‘racist,' it appears that this invasion of Harris's and Ashley's privacy and violation of their rights ... were motivated in part or whole by racial hatred.” Id. at 9.

Plaintiffs bring the following claims in their Complaint:

(1) Deprivation of Plaintiff Harris's Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, against Defendants Stover, Bowman, Vannatta, Wilcox, and City of Texico, and conspiracy by Defendants Bowman and Vannatta to deprive Plaintiff Harris of her constitutional rights;

(2) Deprivation of Plaintiff Harris's equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, against Defendants Bowman and City of Texico for respondeat superior;

(3) Deprivation of Plaintiff Harris's state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, against all Defendants;

(4) Deprivation of Plaintiff Harris's state equal protection rights, against Defendants Bowman and City of Texico for respondeat superior;

(5) Deprivation of Plaintiff Ashley's Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, against Defendants Bowman and City of Texico;

(6) Deprivation of Plaintiff Ashley's equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, against Defendants Bowman and City of Texico for respondeat superior;

(7) Deprivation of Plaintiff Ashley's state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, against Defendants Bowman and City of Texico;

(8) Deprivation of Plaintiff Harris's state equal protection rights against, Defendants Bowman and City of Texico for respondeat superior; and

(9) Deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, against Defendants City of Texico, Curry County, Bowman, Vannatta, and Wilcox.

Id. at 10-17. Plaintiff sues Defendants Bowman and Vannatta in their official and individual capacities, and sues Defendants Stover and Wilcox in their individual capacities only. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Defendants Wilcox and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Curry, and those claims have been dismissed with prejudice. See (Doc. 29).

The City Defendants (Defendants Bowman, Vannatta, and the City of Texico) move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims against them and for qualified immunity. They raise the following arguments: (1) Plaintiffs' state law claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Defendants Bowman and Vannatta are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs' federal claims against them in their individual capacities because (a) their warrantless entry into Plaintiff Harris's apartment was a lawful community caretaker exercise that falls within the exigent circumstances exception, (b) Plaintiffs' Complaint is deficient and fails to state a plausible claim for relief as to Plaintiff Ashley's unreasonable search and seizure claim, and (c) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief for their equal protection claims; (3) Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Bowman and Vannatta in their official capacities are duplicative as to their claims against the City of Texico; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against the City of Texico for municipal liability based on custom or policy. (Doc. 16) at 5-13.

In response, Plaintiffs concede their state law claims (Counts 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9) and their official capacity claims against Defendants Bowman and Vannatta, and agree to dismiss those claims with prejudice. (Doc. 27) at 5, 23. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Dismiss as to the remaining federal claims. They dispute that there were exigent circumstances justifying entry into Plaintiff Harris's apartment, and argue that Defendants Bowman and Vannatta are not entitled to qualified immunity for that claim. Id. at 5-19. Plaintiffs further contend they have stated sufficient facts as to the warrantless entry into Plaintiff Ashley's home and for Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. Id. at 20-23. Finally, Plaintiffs oppose dismissal of their federal claims against the City of Texico and argue the City was on notice that Defendant Bowman had a history of lawsuits alleging misconduct based on racism, which constitutes a policy or custom that was acceptable to the City. Id. at 23.

In their reply, the City Defendants maintain that Defendants Bowman and Vannatta are entitled to qualified immunity for entering Plaintiff Harris's apartment because they had an objectively reasonable basis for believing there was a threat to her physical safety, and the level of intrusion was reasonable for a welfare check. (Doc. 34) at 3. Defendants contend...