Rios v. City of Corsicana

1

MARCOS ANTONIO RIOS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CORSICANA, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:23-cv-00336-S (BT)

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

August 9, 2024

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants the City of Corsicana and Corsicana Police Department (CPD) Officer Jacob Palos filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) this pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below the District Judge should GRANT Defendants' Motion and DISMISS Plaintiff's claims, unless Plaintiff-within the time to file objections to this recommendation, or a deadline otherwise established by the District Judge-files an amended complaint that sets forth additional facts to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

Background

Plaintiff Marcos Antonio Rios, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Corsicana and Officer Palos on February 14, 2023. Compl. (ECF No. 3). In his original Complaint, Rios alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during his arrest in March 2021, when Officer Palos used “excessive force.” Id. at 3. More specifically, Rios's factual allegations-in their entirety-are as follows:

My constitutional rights were violated due to the fact on or about March 3^rd, 2021 while being arrested for failure to id Officer Jacob Palos having me layed [sic] face down with both of my hands handcuffed behind my back knowingly and willingly discharged his weapon (JPX gun) at point-blank range into the left side of my face causing severe burns from muzzle flash, my upper left molar to be broken, swelling and contusions on my face as well as extreme pain and suffering for multiple weeks after.

Id. at 4. As relief, Rios seeks $250,000 in monetary damages. Id.

When Rios filed his Complaint in February 2023, he was a pretrial detainee at the Navarro County Jail, and he had numerous charges pending against him in Navarro County. See Order 1 (ECF No. 6); MJQ 2-4 (ECF No. 8). Rios alleged that at least one of the pending cases was directly related to the events giving rise to his claims in this action. Compl. 4 (ECF No. 3) (alleging his constitutional rights were violated “on or about March 3^rd, 2021 while being arrested for failure to id”). Accordingly, the Court stayed and administratively closed this case pending the resolution of Rios's underlying state criminal charges. Order 1-2 (ECF No. 6) (citing Gross v. Normand, 576 Fed.Appx. 318, 319 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (“[A] court should stay proceedings in a § 1983 case brought by a pretrial detainee until the related pending criminal case is resolved.”)).

On October 13, 2023, the Court lifted the stay and reopened the case after receiving Rios's answers to a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire (MJQ).^[1] Elec. Order (ECF No. 10). Rios's answers clarified that only two of his criminal cases in Navarro County are related to his claims in this case: (1) Cause No. CR-80376-failure to identify fugitive/intent to give false information; and (2) Cause No. CR-80377-surety off bond/resisting arrest, search, or transport. See Pl.'s Resp. to MJQ 2 (ECF No. 9) (explaining that those cases are related to his claims in this case “due to the fact that on or about March 3^rd, 2021 while being arrested for both said cases, Officer Jacob Palos ‘under color' of law knowingly and willing violated my constitutional rights by using excessive force”). Rios also stated that the related criminal cases were resolved when he entered a plea of no contest to the charges and, pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced to 365 days in custody and given credit for 375 days based on time served. Id.

Pursuant to the Court's instructions, the United States Marshal served the City and Officer Palos. See ECF No. 13. And on December 5, 2023, Defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14), as well as a joint Answer (ECF No. 15). In their Answer, Defendants admit Officer Palos arrested Rios on March 3, 2021, on charges of Failure to Identify/Fugitive and Resisting Arrest/Search/Transport, and that Officer Palos deployed a “pepper ball device in an attempt to overcome [Rios's] resistance to arrest.” Answer 1 (ECF No. 15). Defendant Palos further asserted the defense of qualified immunity and pleaded the following specific facts in support of the defense:

At the time of the arrest, Defendant [Palos] was employed as a police officer for the City of Corsicana, Tx, and was on duty in his position as a narcotics officer for the Corsicana Police Dept. Defendant was in civilian clothes wearing an equipment vest which clearly identified him as a police officer. The word “Police” was present on the vest in large white letters. Defendant has been a commissioned peace officer in the State of Texas for almost seven years. Defendant and the officer (a veteran Lieutenant) driving their vehicle observed Plaintiff standing in a darkened area around the corner from the convenience store and in relative darkness. Plaintiff was walking around, gesturing and talking (there was no one else present) and holding a cup. Both Officer Palos and the other officer with him who was driving their police vehicle suspected at that time that Plaintiff was either intoxicated or high on drugs. The location was a known ‘hangout' for drug dealers and multiple arrests for narcotics offenses had been made there. Officer Palos approached Plaintiff and began speaking with him requesting Plaintiff's identification. During the initial encounter, the other officer was inspecting a second beverage cup observed near Plaintiff. Plaintiff responded with a name and date of birth later determined to be false. As the conversation between Officer Palos and Plaintiff continued, Plaintiff admitted his true name and date of birth. Officer Palos then determined that an arrest warrant existed for Plaintiff from another agency. Officer Palos attempted to arrest Plaintiff whereupon Plaintiff fled a short distance by running across the parking lot. Officer Palos quickly caught Plaintiff and brought him to the ground even though Plaintiff continued to physically resist the officer's attempt to arrest him by thrashing about and physically resisting the officer's efforts to restrain Plaintiff. The other officer present quickly moved to assist and proceeded to handcuff Plaintiff overcoming Plaintiff's continued resistance consisting of thrashing about and physically resisting the officers' efforts to restrain Plaintiff. At one point, the other officer told Officer Palos, “He has the cuffs” causing Officer Palos to fear that Plaintiff now had a weapon available. Plaintiff continued to resist and fought the officers by thrashing about and physically resisting the officers' attempt to place his hands behind him. In an attempt to overcome this resistance, Officer Palos deployed his JPX device (this is a pistol-like device which emits a pepper spray gas gel). Officer Palos was attempting to deploy the pepper gas into the pavement/ground near Plaintiff's face. However, due to Plaintiff's thrashing about and moving his head, the gas gel from the device apparently struck Plaintiff in the side of his head causing minor injury. The gel emitted by the device is a red color causing Plaintiff to appear more injured than he was. At the scene, Officer Palos observed a swelling on the side of Plaintiff's face and a red mark there; but did not observe that the skin was broken. Officer Palos did not use other, more serious, available force tactics such as potentially lethal hand-to-hand strikes, impact weapons or his firearm. The pepper spray from the device was emitted into Plaintiff's face whereupon Plaintiff's resistance ceased and the arrest was completed. The device does not emit a “muzzle flash” as alleged in the Complaint. Officer Palos was trained that the JPX pepper spray device is a non-lethal use of force and may by [sic] deployed near a suspect's face in the manner in which Officer Palos was attempting at the time of the incident. Medical personnel were summoned to the scene per department directives requiring same whenever such non-lethal devices are deployed. Plaintiff was then released for incarceration by the local hospital.

Id. 2-4.

In their Motion, Defendants argue that Rios fails to state a claim against the City for municipal liability under § 1983 because the Complaint does not allege that any purported legal deprivation resulted from a policy, practice, or custom of the City. Mot. Dismiss ¶¶ 2-3 (ECF No. 14).

Regarding his claims against Officer Palos, Defendants contend that Rios has not pleaded facts sufficient to overcome the asserted qualified immunity defense. Id. ¶¶ 6-9; Answer ¶ 4 (ECF No. 15).

In his Response, Rios reiterates that Officer Palos used excessive force against him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Resp. 1 (ECF No. 18). Rios also references body camera footage capturing the arrest. Id. at 2. Rios does not describe the camera footage, but he alleges that such footage will “show evidence that surpass [his] burden to prove liability” and “show that no reasonable official in the shoes of the Defendant could have believed that the actions taken were consistent with the preservation of the legal rights asserted by [Rios].” Id. at 2. Rios also adds an allegation regarding his alleged injury, asserting that he “acquired medical bills” as a result of the excessive force. Id. at 1.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and ready for disposition.

Legal Standards

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on...