Taylor v. Hartley

488 F.Supp.3d 517

Edward TAYLOR, Plaintiff,

v.Harry HARTLEY, in his individual capacity, and Harris County, Texas, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-04811

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

Signed September 22, 2020

Andrew Joseph Willey, Drew Willey Law, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Barbara Ann Callistien, Cameron Hatzel, Harris County Attorney's Office, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION RESOLVING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Charles Eskridge, United States District Judge The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Harry Hartley is denied. Dkt 19. His assertion of qualified immunity doesn't overcome the facts as pleaded in the complaint by Plaintiff Edward Taylor.

The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Harris County is granted. Dkt 18. The civil rights claims under 42 USC § 1983 asserting municipal liability are dismissed without prejudice. The claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are dismissed with prejudice.

1. Background

This is a civil rights action. The standard of review in the present posture requires that the allegations in Taylor's amended complaint be accepted as true. Walker v. Beaumont Independent School District , 938 F.3d 724, 735 (5th Cir. 2019). That complaint factually pleads as follows.

Taylor suffers from cognitive, behavioral, and physical disabilities. He has "epilepsy, lack of motor functions, speech impediments, brain damage/trauma, and mental illness." Dkt 17 at ¶ 21. These conditions substantially limit "his ability to care for himself, eat, sleep, speak, learn, read, concentrate, think, communicate, interact with others, work, and consortium activities." Id at ¶ 23. They also substantially limit "the operation of his immune, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, and respiratory systems." Id at ¶ 26. And these conditions cause "headaches, confusion, memory problems, and nausea" and result in "cognitive, behavioral, and physical disabilities." Id at ¶¶ 24–25.

Taylor was arrested for assault while receiving treatment for his disabilities at a hospital in February 2017. Id at ¶ 19. He was taken to the Harris County Jail. Taylor alleges that, while he was waiting in line with other inmates being processed into the jail, his mental issues were "obvious to all present." Id at ¶¶ 28–29. He doesn't explain why this was so.

Hartley is an officer with the Harris County Sheriff's Office. He was present when Taylor was waiting in line. Taylor alleges that Hartley "was being ‘mouthy’ to all the inmates." Id at ¶ 30.

When it was Taylor's turn to be checked in and moved to the courtroom for his initial appearance, Hartley yelled at him to "take his gay ass hat off." Id at ¶ 32. Taylor asserts that he felt threatened, had a mental outburst, and swung at Hartley. Id at ¶ 34. Hartley caught Taylor's arm, threw him to the ground, slammed his head into the concrete, and then proceeded to punch him in the face fifteen times. Id at ¶¶ 35–39. Taylor was limp and unconscious after the second punch to his face, but Hartley only stopped because another officer pulled him away and off of Taylor. Id at ¶¶ 40–41.

Taylor asserts that at no point did he resist or try to defend himself. Id at ¶¶ 43–44. And he alleges that Hartley's "excessive use of force" and "attempt to kill" him occurred after he was already restrained. Id at ¶¶ 56–57. One inmate apparently described the incident as Hartley "hammering on Plaintiff." Id at ¶ 46. Others yelled at Hartley to stop because they thought he was going to kill Taylor. Id at ¶ 47. The amended complaint states, "Other inmates viewing this incident agreed that the force was unnecessary and excessive." Id at ¶ 45.

Taylor was taken to a hospital for his injuries. He required a surgically inserted shunt to relieve pressure on his brain, treatment for an antibiotic-resistant infection, and surgical clipping of an aneurysm, in addition to other medical care. Id at ¶¶ 65–66. He has also undergone extensive follow-up care and surgical procedures. Id at ¶ 68.

As to the arrest that brought Taylor to the Harris County Jail in the first place, a grand jury eventually determined that there were inadequate grounds for prosecution. He was never formally charged. Id at ¶ 20. He notes that he was charged with assault on a public servant with respect to the incident at hand, which was also dismissed. Id at ¶ 63.

Taylor alleges that Hartley wasn't charged with any crime or disciplined in any way, despite Taylor sending a "demand letter" that isn't otherwise described. Id at ¶ 64. He also asserts that Hartley lied about the incident in the offense report, in which he wrote that Taylor "rose up against Hartley" and "made attempts to continue to strike Hartley." Id at ¶ 58. Taylor also devotes nearly two pages in his complaint to describing a history by Hartley of abuse and poor performance, including racially derogatory remarks, verbal aggression, refusal to give medical treatment, anger-management issues, and general bullying and belittling conduct. Id at ¶¶ 69–72. Taylor asserts that Harris County ignored complaints about Hartley and allowed him to ridicule his coworkers in front of staff and inmates without discipline. Id at ¶ 73.

Taylor sued Hartley in his individual capacity under 42 USC § 1983 for excessive use of force. He stated additional claims against Harris County under 42 USC § 1983 for failure to train and ratification. He also alleges Harris County is liable under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 12101 et seq, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 USC § 794.

2. Legal standard

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff's complaint to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 12(b)(6) allows the defendant to seek dismissal if the plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Read together, the Supreme Court has held that Rule 8 "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint "must provide the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when assumed to be true ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ " Cuvillier v. Taylor , 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007), quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

A complaint must therefore contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. 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." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. This standard on plausibility is "not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

Review on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is constrained. The reviewing court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Walker , 938 F.3d at 735. The court must also generally limit itself to the contents of the pleadings and its attachments. Brand Coupon Network LLC v. Catalina Marketing Corp. , 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014).

But a notable exception allows a defendant to attach documents "if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim." Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000), quoting Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993). The Fifth Circuit characterizes this as a "limited exception." Scanlan v. Texas A&M University , 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003). Where appropriate, review of such evidence can assist the court "in making the elementary determination of whether a claim has been stated." Collins, 224 F.3d at 498–99.

3. Inclusion of videotape screenshots

Videotape recordings from the jail hallway apparently captured the incident between Taylor and Hartley. Dkt 17 at ¶ 2. The videotape itself isn't before the Court and hasn't been reviewed. But with their motions to dismiss, Hartley and Harris County attached five screenshots captured from the moments before the physical encounter itself commenced.

Taylor objects. An initial issue is whether these screenshots can properly be considered in the current procedural posture.

a. Consideration under Rule 12(b)(6)

Hartley and Harris County explain the screenshots this way:

The video depicting the beginning of this incident clearly reveals that the incident began with Plaintiff's provocation of physical violence as alleged in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The following screen captures demonstrate the 5 seconds at the beginning of this incident where DO Hartley provided instructions to the Plaintiff to remove his hat, the Plaintiff appeared to comply with these instructions and then, just as DO Hartley directed his attention away, the Plaintiff abruptly turned to attack DO Hartley.

Dkt 18 at 2; Dkt 19 at 1–2.

Inspection of the screenshots show date and time stamps spanning just over three seconds. Only the back and top of Hartley's head is visible. The screenshots are accompanied by descriptive captions stating:

• DO Hartley Speaking Directly to Plaintiff Directing Plaintiff to Remove His Hat ;

• DO Hartley's Attention Directed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff Apparently Complying ;

• DO Hartley's Attention Directed Away from Plaintiff, Plaintiff Abruptly Turning Back ;

• Plaintiff Drawing Left Arm Back to Attack DO Hartley; and

• Pl

...