Lewis v. Rosenberg Police Dep't City of Rosenberg

1

MICHAEL LEWIS and REGINA ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff, v. ROSENBERG POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY OF ROSENBERG, JOHN DELGADO, ADAM VASQUEZ, ARTHUR LOVE, JOHN CLAUSEN, and RYAN CANTU, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-02593

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

May 25, 2023

ORDER

Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

Before the Court is John Delgado, Adam Vasquez, Arthur Love, John Clausen, and Ryan Cantu's (the “Officers”) and City of Rosenberg, Texas (the “City”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Lewis (“Lewis”) and Regina Armstead's (“Armstead”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Complaint. (Doc. No. 18). Plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. No. 25), and Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 29). After reviewing the applicable law and the motions, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

According to the Complaint, that the Court must accept as true Plaintiffs are fifty-seven and sixty-seven years old. As alleged in their Complaint, on or about 6:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020, Plaintiff Armstead was driving in her vehicle with Plaintiff Lewis when officers from the Rosenberg Police Department (“RPD”) pulled their vehicle over detained them at gunpoint, handcuffed them, searched the entirety of their vehicle, and confiscated Armstead's property.

Earlier that evening, RPD allegedly received a call from the Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) reporting that a group of teenagers had brandished guns in front of a group of children.

A caller had reported that the suspect teenagers fled in a white vehicle with tinted windows and black rims. RPD dispatched officers John Delgado, Ryan Cantu, Adam Vasquez, Arthur Love, and John Clausen (collectively “the Officers”) to apprehend the teenagers. Very soon after that report, Plaintiffs were driving in a white Dodge Charger with silver hubcaps in the same area in which the Officers were told to search. Armstead was in the process of driving home with Lewis in the passenger seat.

Within five minutes of receiving the call about the teenagers, the Officers pulled over Armstead's car. When the Officers first turned on their lights and sirens, Armstead assumed the Officers were pursuing another vehicle, so she slowed down to let them pass. When the Officers instructed Armstead to pull over via the intercom system, she immediately complied with the instructions. Once stopped, the Officers used their intercom system to direct Armstead to throw her keys out the window. She did. Next, the Officers demanded that she exit the vehicle and get on her hand and knees. She, again, followed the Officers' directions. Once on the ground, they ordered her to stand up and walk backwards towards the police vehicle. Armstead, again, followed their directions. Upon reaching the vehicle, an officer grabbed her arms and handcuffed her. All of this occurred as other Officers pointed their guns at her. Once handcuffed, she was searched. While being handcuffed and searched, Armstead claims that she informed the Officers that Lewis, the passenger in her car, was a dialysis patient and that his medical condition was managed through the use of an AV Fistula in his left forearm. She also claims she informed the officers that Lewis could not have tight items, such as handcuffs, around his left arm or wrist due to his medical condition. After the Officers handcuffed Armstead, they placed her in the back of a police vehicle where she remained for the duration of the investigation, which lasted about 45 minutes.

Lewis, on the other hand, was initially instructed to remain in the vehicle, which he did. After the Officers had secured Armstead, they moved on to take Lewis into physical custody. Over the intercom, the Officers told Lewis to stick his hands outside the window. Then, four officers- one holding an assault rifle-ordered Lewis out of the vehicle and onto the ground. In response, Lewis stated that his age (67 years old) prevented him from kneeling, yet he still lowered himself to his knees. The Officers then handcuffed Lewis. The Plaintiffs claim Lewis also informed the Officers of the stint in his hand and told the Officers that his doctor had instructed him not to put anything on his hands or wrists. Nevertheless, the Officers handcuffed Lewis. Lewis was subsequently pulled to his feet and placed in the back of a separate police vehicle. He remained there for approximately 20 minutes.

While the Plaintiffs were in the back of the police vehicles, the Officers conducted a search of Armstead's vehicle that lasted approximately 20 minutes. One Officer also confiscated Armstead's cell phone during this time. The Officers found no weapons, contraband, or other evidence of illegal activity during the vehicle's search. Following the search, the Officers let Lewis and Armstead out of the police vehicles, removed their handcuffs, and permitted them to leave the scene.

On the drive home, Armstead realized she did not have her phone, house keys, or the vehicle key fob.^[1] Armstead used Lewis's cellphone to call the Rosenberg Police Department and explain she was missing certain items. The operator instructed Armstead to return to the scene of the stop where an officer would meet her. When the Plaintiffs returned, they were met by Officer Love and another officer. The Officers returned her phone and helped locate her keys. Ultimately, the keys were found in the street, but the vehicle key fob, presumably in the intervening time period, had been crushed. Officer Love instructed Plaintiffs to get a receipt for the cost of replacing the fob, submit the receipt to the Rosenberg Police Department, and the Rosenberg Police Department would reimburse them for their expenses. Armstead followed the Officer's instructions but were never reimbursed for the vehicle fob.

Additionally, as a result of the handcuffing, Lewis's medical device in his wrist malfunctioned. Lewis had to undergo three separate medical procedures to replace the fistula.^[2]

II. Case History

Plaintiffs brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Texas state law concerning the alleged illegal and violent detention, search, arrest, and seizure. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that RPD officers have an extensive and well-documented history of conducting violent stops and arrests, routinely using severe force against civilians, and regularly detaining civilians in an aggressive manner. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that they were unlawfully detained, falsely arrested, illegally searched, and that the Officer used excessive force, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), illegally seized their property, and are guilty of civil theft and/or conversion. In response to Plaintiffs' allegations Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts which state a plausible claim for relief because (1) Plaintiffs do not make out a claim of a violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) the individual Defendants are entitled to immunity; (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege plausible factual allegation under the ADA; (4) Plaintiffs' state law tort claims against the City are barred by governmental immunity not waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act; (5) the Texas Tort Claims Act election of remedies provision bars suit against the individual city employees; and (6) Plaintiffs' allegations do not state a Monell claim against the City. Plaintiff responded in opposition (Doc. No. 25), and Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. No. 29).

III. Legal Standard

A defendant may file a motion to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The Court is not bound to accept factual assumptions or legal conclusions as true, and only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court assumes their veracity and then determines whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.

IV. Discussion

A. Qualified Immunity

As mentioned, Defendants urge the Court to grant their motion because Plaintiffs did not make out a claim of a violation of the Fourth Amendment or the ADA. Alternatively, Defendants contend dismissal is proper as to the individual Defendants because Plaintiffs' claims are insufficient to overcome the Officers' qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory...