Jorge v. Galarza-Soto

EMMANUEL FERNÁNDEZ JORGE andCARMEN LIDIA JORGE, Plaintiffs, v. SERGEANT JULIO GALARZA-SOTOand JUAN CARLOS ORTIZ-CRUZ, Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 14-1590 (GAG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

June 12, 2017

OPINION AND ORDER

This case concerns an altercation between Emmanuel Ferdández Jorge ("Fernández") and officers of the Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD") in which Fernández was shot and seriously injured. Fernández, along with his mother, Carmen Lidia Jorge ("Jorge"), bring this suit pursuant to section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to recover damages from two defendants in their individual capacities: Officer Juan Carlos Ortiz-Cruz ("Ortiz") and Sergeant Julio-Galarza-Soto ("Galarza") of the PRPD. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiffs also bring supplemental state law claims against these Defendants under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, § 5141, and Article II of the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Id.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 76.) Primarily, Defendants argue Plaintiffs' claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which bars any section 1983 damages claim that would invalidate a state conviction. (Docket No. 76, at 5-10.) As a fallback, Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs' excessive force, failure to intervene, and supervisory liability claims, arguing no genuine dispute of material fact exists on each of those claims. Id. at 10-24. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue (1) Heck does not apply to juvenile administrative proceedings; (2) the facts established in Fernández's juvenile proceedings do not contradict the facts of this case; and (3) even taking the juvenile proceeding facts as conclusively established, genuine issues of material fact nonetheless preclude summary judgment as to each of Plaintiffs' claims. (Docket No. 89.) After review of the factual record and applicable law, Defendants' motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 76 is DENIED.

I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background¹

The events relevant to this case took place on December 31, 2010. At that time, Plaintiff Fernández was a seventeen-year-old minor. (Docket Nos. 1 ¶ 5; 28 ¶ 5.) Fernández lived with his mother, Jorge, in the Alturas de Cupey Housing Project. (Docket Nos. 1 ¶ 5; 28 ¶ 5.)

On December 31, 2010, Fernández got into a champagne colored, four-door Honda with two other individuals, nicknamed Goty and Rafo. (Defendants' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, hereinafter "DSUMF", Docket No. 76-1, ¶¶ 1, 2; Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, hereinafter "PSUMF", Docket No. 89-1, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Fernández got into the car believing he would be given a ride to a nearby shopping mall. (PSUMF ¶ 6.) Once inside the car, Fernández learned that Rafo was armed with a black firearm on his waist. (DSUMF ¶¶ 6, 7; PSUMF ¶¶ 6, 7.) The three young men did not drive to the mall. Instead, they drove to the Recycling Center in Trujillo Alto to "collect owed money." (PSUMF ¶ 225.) Ferndández stayed in the back seat of the car while the Goty and Rafo got out of the car at the Recycling Center. Id. at ¶ 226.

The police spotted them at the Recycling Center almost immediately. PRPD Officers Rivera and Figueroa, who had just started their 10:00 AM police shift, observed two individuals get out of a champagne-colored Honda, in what appeared to be a robbery of the Recycling Center. (DSUMF¶¶ 16, 17; PSUMF ¶¶ 16, 17.) Then, the two individuals hurried back into the car and drove away from the Recycling Center. (DSUMF ¶ 17, 18; PSUMF ¶¶ 17, 18.)

A car chase followed. Rivera pursued the vehicle; Figueroa stayed at the Recycling Center. (DSUMF ¶¶ 18, 19; PSUMF ¶¶ 18, 19.) Figueroa radioed to the precinct, describing the car and the direction the individuals fled. (DSUMF ¶¶ 20, 21; PSUMF ¶¶ 20, 21.) The information was dispatched out to other precincts and the municipal police. (DSUMF ¶ 108; PSUMF ¶ 108.) Ferndández recalled being followed by both green (Municipal) and blue (PRPD) police officers. (PSUMF ¶¶ 228; Defendants' Reply Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, hereinafter "DRSUMF", Docket No. 95-1, ¶ 228.) According to Fernández, officers shot at the car during the car chase.² (PSUMF ¶ 227.)

Officer Ortiz's involvement in the incident began when another PRPD officer radioed to the PRPD precinct describing the Recycling Plant robbery and subsequent car chase. (DSUMF ¶ 27; PSUMF ¶ 27.) Ortiz and his partner, Officer Lebrón, left the precinct and drove to the area described in the radio call, Road 843 in Trujillo Alta. (DSUMF ¶¶ 28, 29; PSUMF ¶¶ 28, 29.) When Oritz and Lebrón arrived at the scene, Officer Rivera was watching over the abandoned car. (DSUMF ¶¶ 29, 34; DSUMF ¶¶ 29, 34.) Ortiz and Lebrón learned that the three individuals had fled the car on foot, and headed down the hill on the side of the road. (DSUMF ¶ 33; PSUMF ¶ 33.) Ortiz and Lebrón set out looking for the individuals, but "[t]hey had no plan" and they eventually split up. (DSUMF ¶ 35; PSUMF ¶ 35.) Ortiz did not see any other officers in the area as he continued to pursue the Recycle Center robbery suspects. (DSUMF ¶ 73; PSUMF ¶ 73.)

Galarza was the sergeant on duty for the PRPD and was in charge of the officers on scene during the relevant time pertaining to the incident with Fernández. (Docket Nos. 1 ¶ 3; 28 ¶ 3.)Galarza learned of the incident in a telephone call from Figueroa. (DSUMF ¶¶ 105, 106; PSUMF ¶¶ 105, 106.) He arrived at abandoned car at Road 843 after Officer Ortiz began his pursuit on foot. (DSUMF ¶ 109; PSUMF ¶ 109.) Galarza instructed Lebrón and Ortiz to search the hillside area for the suspects who had fled the car. (DSUMF ¶ 177; PSUMF ¶ 177.) Sometime after Galarza arrived at the scene, he heard, but did not see, four or five gunshots coming from the down the hill. (DSUMF ¶¶ 110-12; PSUMF ¶¶ 110-12.)

While the parties present different versions of the events immediately before the shooting, certain facts are undisputed. Ortiz pursued two individuals on foot into the woods. (DSUMF ¶¶ 76, 77; PSUMF ¶¶ 76, 77.) The two individuals were Fernández (white shirt) and Rafo (blue shirt). (DSUMF ¶ 92; PSUMF ¶ 92.) Fernández was unarmed. (DSUMF ¶ 80, PSUMF ¶ 80.) At some point, Ortiz shot at the two individuals. (DSUMF ¶ 85; PSUMF ¶ 85.) Fernández was hit by bullets from Oritz's gun. (DSUMF ¶¶ 86, 87; ¶¶ 86, 87.) Rafo was never apprehended and his gun was never recovered. (DSUMF ¶ 93; PSUMF ¶ 93.) From there, Plaintiffs' and Ortiz's version of events diverge significantly. For the sake of clarity, the Court sets forth each account separately.

According to Fernández, when he got out of the car and fled on foot, he did not surrender to the authorities because he feared for his life. (PSUMF ¶ 229.) Then, the police shot at Fernández and Rafo while they ran through the woods. Id. ¶ 231. Fernández and Rafo then lay down in the approximately three-foot high grass on the hill, as officers continued to shoot. Id. ¶ 232. About two minutes later, while Fernández lay in the grass, he was shot in the back. Id. ¶¶ 232, 241. Fernández rolled over to see officers approaching him with their guns drawn. Id. ¶ 234. Fernández was shot three times during the incident. Id. ¶ 242. Fernández knew Rafo had a gun, but he never saw Rafo use the gun. Id. ¶ 235.

Ortiz describes the foot chase and apprehension of Fernández quite differently. Ortiz wasalone in the woods. (DSMUF ¶ 77.) As Ortiz looked through the tall grass and trees for movement, he saw two individuals walking and looking around, as if they thought they were being followed. Id. The two individuals were about 150 feet away. Id. ¶ 88. An individual wearing a blue shirt turned around, raised his gun, and fired multiple shots at Ortiz. Id. ¶¶ 79, 82. In response, Ortiz ducked and fired back at the individual in the blue shirt. Id. ¶¶ 83, 84. Ortiz did not call for backup. Id. ¶ 81. When the gunfire ceased, Ortiz observed an individual in a white shirt laying on the ground, while the individual in the blue shirt fled. Id. ¶¶ 86, 87. Ortiz later learned that the individual in the white shirt was Plaintiff Fernández. Id. ¶¶ 92-95.

The events after the shooting are disputed as well. Fernández claims he was grabbed by a few police officers, carried out of the woods, and placed in the bed of a pick-up truck. (PSUMF ¶ 92.) Fernández remained at the scene, bleeding and in pain, for over an hour. Id. No ambulance ever arrived, so officers transported him, in the back of a pick-up truck, to the hospital. Id.

Defendants, by contrast, rely on the testimony of Emergency Management Officer Luis Marte Ayala ("Marte"). (DSUMF ¶¶ 115-34.) Marte received a call about a wounded officer in the area. Id. ¶ 117. When Marte arrived, there was no wounded officer, but he heard gunshots and received a second call describing a wounded individual nearby. Id. ¶¶ 120, 123. Marte tried to call an ambulance, but none were available. Id. ¶¶ 121, 128. He saw officers carrying Fernández out of the woods. Id. ¶¶ 124-26. According to Marte, the distance Fernández was carried, from the woods to the road, was about a mile. Id. ¶ 126. Fernández was conscious. Id. ¶ 129. Fernández then lay on the side of the road for ten to twenty minutes. (Docket No. 76-8, at 27.) Marte was instructed by other officers—it is unclear who—to put Fernández in the back of his pick-up truck, and drive him to the hospital. (DSUMF ¶ 129.) Marte then drove Fernández in the pickup truck to Auxilio Mutuo Expreso Hospital, where he was treated for the gun shot wounds. Id. ¶ 131. Over an hourpassed from when he learned Fernández had been shot to when he took Fernández to the hospital. (PSUMF ¶ 92; DRSUMF ¶ 205; see also Docket No. 76-8, at 17.)

Fernández was summoned to juvenile court and charged with nine juvenile offenses. (DSUMF ¶¶ 2, 9; PSUMF ¶¶ 2, 9.) Eight of the nine offenses were directly related to the robbery at the...