Ramos v. Taylor

646 F.Supp.3d 807

Brenda RAMOS, on behalf of herself and the Estate of Mike Ramos, Plaintiff, v. Christopher TAYLOR and the City of Austin, Defendants.

1:20-CV-1256-RP

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

Filed December 19, 2022

Signed December 18, 2022

Scott M. Hendler, Donald Puckett, Hendler Flores Law PLLC, Austin, TX, Rebecca Ruth Webber, Webber Law, Austin, TX, Shelby Jean White, Thad D. Spalding, Durham, Pittard & Spalding LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Archie Carl Pierce, Blair J. Leake, Stephen B. Barron, Wright & Greenhill, P.C., Austin, TX, for Defendant Christopher Taylor.

Henry Gray Laird, III, City of Austin Law Department, Austin, TX, for Defendant City of Austin.

ORDER

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant City of Austin ("City of Austin" or "the City"), (Dkt. 47), a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Christopher Taylor ("Taylor"), (Dkt. 49), and a motion to strike filed by Plaintiff Brenda Ramos ("Plaintiff"), (Dkt. 66). Having considered the parties' briefs, the record, and the relevant law, the Court will deny Taylor's motion to dismiss, moot Plaintiff's motion to strike, and grant the City's motion in part and deny the motion in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the April 24, 2020, police shooting of Mike Ramos ("Ramos"), a Black and Hispanic resident of Austin. His mother, Brenda Ramos, brought suit against the City of Austin and Austin Police Department ("APD") Officer Christopher Taylor, (2d. Am. Compl., Dkt. 45), and alleges the following facts:

On April 24, 2022, APD received a muffled, partially unintelligible 911 call reporting two Hispanic people in a car at the Rosemont Apartments at 2601 South Pleasant Valley Road, Austin, Texas. (Id. at 2). The operator struggled to understand the caller, whose audio was garbled and sounded as though she was pulling away the phone (Id. at 3). The caller stated that the man in the car was armed, but after repeated questions from the police, the caller clarified that the man in the car was simply holding a gun, not pointing it at anyone. (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that APD should have recognized several factors that made the call suspect. The story changed, there was no threat of imminent harm to anyone, and the description of the people in the vehicles did not match what Ramos was actually wearing when officers arrived. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff claims it was a swatting incident—where a caller deliberately reports a fictitious emergency so that police respond and frighten the victims. (Id. at 3). Despite the allegedly suspect nature of the call, APD mobilized seven officers, including Defendant Christopher Taylor, to the scene, along with a police helicopter and dog. (Id. at 4). The police arrived on the scene and several officers, including Taylor, were armed with semi-automatic rifles. (Id.). They blocked the entrance to the parking lots and enclosed the space around Ramos's Toyota Prius. (Id.). They then confirmed that Ramos did not have a weapon in his hand or on his person. (Id.).

According to the complaint, the officers then got out of their vehicles and aimed their rifles at Ramos and his companion in the Prius. (Id. at 5). Taylor was in the center of the cars, aiming his rifle at Ramos. (Id.). Officer Pieper, who was still in field training, had previously been told to stay in the car. (Id. at 10). However, at the scene, he got out of the vehicle and aimed a firearm at Taylor loaded with "less lethal" rounds. (Id.). The officers commanded Ramos to step out of the car. Ramos complied immediately. (Id. at 5). He got out of the car with his hands up. (Id. at 6). At that point, it was clear that he did not match the description of that the caller had given as he was wearing a different colored shirt and did not have a gun. (Id.). Ramos turned around at the direction of the police to show them that he did not have a handgun. (Id.).

At that point, according to the complaint, the situation escalated. The police began shouting conflicting commands at Ramos, all while pointing their rifles at him. (Id. at 7). The police did not explain why Ramos had been surrounded. (Id.). They did not explain why they pointed semi-automatic rifles at him. (Id.). Ramos repeatedly asked with the police officers to explain what was going on, stating, "What's going on? What's going on?" (Id. at 8). As stated in the complaint, he plead with them, "Put the guns down, dawg. What the fuck is going on? Why? What the fuck? You're scaring the fuck out of me?" (Id.). In response, Officer Cantu-Harkless said, "I can't explain right now Mike." (Id. at 9).

The officers once again shouted allegedly conflicting commands. One told him to keep his hands up, another to walk forward, another to turn around in a circle, and another to get on his knees. (Id. at 10). Ramos stayed with his hands up, and Taylor began to order the trainee Pieper to "move up" and "impact up." (Id. at 11). Pieper shouted, "comply with us!" (Id.).

Ramos pleaded with them again. "Impact me for what? Put the gun down dawg. Man, what the fuck dawg?" (Id.). Taylor and other officers ordered Pieper to shoot Ramos with a less lethal projectile. (Id.). Pieper shot Ramos with his hands in the air above his head. (Id.). The complaint notes that bystanders began to shout, wondering why the police shot him. (Id. at 12). In reaction, Ramos entered his car, as his companion left the passenger side. (Id. at 15). Ramos began to drive away. He drove towards the dead end blocked by dumpsters, away from Taylor and the officers (Id.).

According to the complaint, Taylor opened fire as the car drove away. (Id.) Neither Taylor nor any other officer were in front of the Prius nor in the direction it was facing. (Id. at 16). Taylor fired from behind his police cruiser, standing at the passenger side door. (Id.). Bystanders began to yell, "Why you shootin him?" and "Why you murdering this man?" (Id.). Only Taylor, and no other officers, had fired their lethal weapons. (Id. at 18). He fired three shots at Ramos, who died of a gunshot to the back of his head. (Id. at 17).

Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint on March 15, 2022. She brings claims under Section 1983 for violating Ramos's Fourth Amendment rights, based on both the allegedly unwarranted and unreasonable killing of Ramos, as well as the discriminatory practices of the APD more generally. In her complaint, she alleges that APD has systemically targeted Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. (Id. at 20). The complaint cites a 2016 study that APD officers use more violence in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and are more likely to use severe force against Black people. (Id.). APD officers were also found to be more likely to shoot Black suspects rather than using hand-to-hand training. The complaint also cites a report from an Austin oversight office which highlights the disproportionate policing practices of APD. (Id. at 21-22). According to Plaintiff, these practices show a consistently racist and discriminatory pattern of behavior from APD officers.

In addition to APD's allegedly disproportionate policing of communities of color, Plaintiff claims that APD trained its officers in a "paramilitary" style, emphasizing conflict over de-escalation. (Id. at 19). She states that the City itself shut down its training academy after Ramos's shooting in order to transition from a "military-styled Academy" into one with a stronger emphasis on de-escalation and communication skills. (Id. at 19-20). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the City failed to adequately discipline its officers, especially Taylor, for excessive use of violence. Plaintiff contends that Taylor has been involved in unwarranted shootings of civilians before and has not been punished by APD for either incident. (Id. at 18-19). Plaintiff argues that the City has failed to investigate violence and made a deliberate choice not to discipline officers from using excessive force.

Defendants City of Austin and Christopher Taylor filed separate motions to dismiss. (Dkts. 47, 49). The City alleges that Plaintiff has failed to plead a policy or practice of violence by APD personnel against Black and Hispanic residents. (City's Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 47, at 2-5). The City also alleges that Plaintiff has failed to plead specific, non-conclusory facts that would support a failure to train or supervise or implement inadequate disciplinary policies. (Id. at 5-11).

Taylor's Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 12, 2022, argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, and that Plaintiff has not plead facts which show Taylor's actions were clearly unreasonable. (Taylor's Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 49, at 7). He argues that both the temporal and physical proximity to Ramos placed him in reasonable fear of being hit by the Prius. (Id. at 7-11).

In support of his argument, Taylor relies on three video exhibits. The videos are a screen recording of YouTube videos provided by the City that show dashcam and bodycam videos of the events leading up to and including Ramos's death. (Id. at 5-6). Ramos filed a motion to strike these video exhibits on June 8, 2022. (Mot. Strike, Dkt. 66). Taylor responded by arguing that the motion to strike should be denied as untimely. (Resp., Dkt. 67).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a "court accepts 'all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.' " In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)). "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations,' but must provide the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when...