Waller v. City of Fort Worth Tex.

ANGIE WALLER, ET AL. v. CITY OF FORT WORTH TEXAS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-670-Y

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

April 12, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment of defendants Merle Green and Dana Baggott (doc. 153). After review of the motion, response, reply, related briefs, appendices, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

On May 28, 2013, just before 1:00 a.m., ADT Security Services ("ADT") received notice of a burglar-alarm activation at 409 Havenwood Lane North in Fort Worth, Texas, the residence of a Mrs. Bailey. Unable to reach Bailey, ADT contacted one of Bailey's neighbors. The neighbor informed ADT that Bailey had recently undergone a medical procedure and asked that ADT send someone to check on Bailey. The ADT operator then contacted the Fort WorthPolice Department ("FWPD"), stating that ADT had received a burglar-alarm notification at 409 Havenwood Lane North, the Bailey residence.

In response, the FWPD dispatched two newly trained police officers, Richard Hoeppner and Benjamin Hanlon, to respond to the burglar alarm at the Bailey residence. Though they believed they were at the correct address, 409 Havenwood Lane North, the officers actually began investigating the residence of Jerry and Kathy Waller at 404 Havenwood Lane North. Upon exiting their patrol cars, the officers walked up the Wallers' driveway together and then into the back yard. After both officers surveyed the back of the house, Hanlon went by himself to the front of the house to knock on the door. Hanlon heard dogs barking and saw a light come on inside the home and radioed Hoeppner to come around to the front at 1:06:06 a.m. Instead of waiting on Hoeppner, however, Hanlon went to the back of the house because he heard someone yelling, and there he allegedly encountered Hoeppner with his gun drawn on Jerry Waller inside the garage. The subsequent actions of Waller and the officers are in dispute and have given rise to the present lawsuit.

According to Plaintiffs, Jerry Waller was awakened by blinking lights coming from outside his home. Waller raised his overhead garage door to turn off the alarm on his vehicle, which was int the driveway, believing it to be the source of the blinking lights. When Waller raised the garage door, he encountered Hoeppner, whoshined a bright light into Waller's eyes and yelled "drop the gun." Hoeppner did not, however, identify himself as a police officer to Waller. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Waller had a gun when he entered the garage, but the plaintiffs claim that Waller laid his gun on the car's hood that was parked in the garage when told to do so by Hoeppner. Plaintiffs further assert that Waller never reached for his gun nor pointed it at Hoeppner once placing the gun on the car's hood. According to Plaintiffs, the blood-spatter evidence from the crime-scene photographs and the autopsy report show that Waller could not have been holding a gun when shot by Hoeppner. Plaintiffs point to blood spatter on the left side of Waller's face, combined with the entry-and-exit wounds sustained by Waller on his left hand, support their contention that Waller was unarmed and shielding his eyes from the bright lights when he was shot. Hoeppner and Hanlon insist, however, that Waller grabbed the gun and pointed it at Hoeppner just before Hoeppner shot and killed Waller. And at 1:06:50 a.m., forty-four seconds after Hanlon's first radio transmission, he contacted the police dispatcher and stated, "The guy came out with a gun, wouldn't put the gun down and pointed it at Hoeppner and Hoeppner fired."

The first officers to arrive after Waller was shot--between six and ten minutes later--were B.S. Hardin and A. Chambers. Hardin told investigators that he "had EMS experience" and approached Waller to see if there were any signs of life. Hardin furtherstated that Waller's hands were underneath his body when Hardin moved Waller's body to check for signs of life. Hardin also stated that he removed the gun from underneath Waller's body and placed it a few feet away for the safety of others at the crime scene. Plaintiffs also point out that the crime-scene photographs contradict Hardin's statement. Plaintiffs contend that, had the gun been under Waller's body, the gun would have had large amounts of blood on it given the amount of blood that Waller was lying in. According to Plaintiffs, though, the crime-scene photographs do not reveal any blood on the gun, but later photographs do, which appears to have come from being in contact with a bloody glove.

Plaintiffs assert that Baggott and Green mishandled the investigation and claim that each detective was complicit in covering up the unlawful shooting of Waller. In that regard, Plaintiffs claim that Baggott and Green did not aggressively question the inconsistent statements given by the officers, and were aware that Hardin allegedly removed a gun from underneath Waller's body, and that he repositioned the body in the process. And according to Plaintiffs, Baggot and Green failed to follow-up on evidence that refuted each officer's account, such as a lack of visible blood found on the gun despite being under a body that was bleeding profusely. Therefore, Plaintiffs conclude, Green and Baggott acted unreasonably in their investigation, and thus, have joined a conspiracy to cover up the unlawful actions of the otherofficers.

Plaintiffs further state that "Baggott and Green, failed to obtain a warrant until after they had rummaged through the Waller residence and . . . then misrepresented to the magistrate the facts necessary to obtain a warrant . . . ." Plaintiffs also claim that Baggott and Green "undertook to alter and affect the testimony of . . . Hanlon and Hoeppner, by [asking] leading and suggestive questions and not challenging the clear inconsistencies in the [officers'] stories." Plaintiffs allege that "Baggott secretly and surreptitiously recorded a conversation with Kathy Waller while she was being treated at the Harris Hospital emergency room" after her husband was shot. Plaintiffs further state that Baggott and Green "published confidential medical information about Jerry Waller that was in no way related to the [cause of his] death." In doing so, Plaintiffs allege that Baggott and Green violated Kathy Waller's rights to privacy.

As a result, Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints, asserting claims against detectives Green and Baggott. In response, Green and Baggott have filed a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, asserting that they are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs' claims. The Court must now consider whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and thus judgment as a matter of law, when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Summary-Judgment Standard

When the record establishes "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law," summary judgment is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[A dispute] is 'genuine' if it is real and substantial, as opposed to merely formal, pretended, or a sham." Bazan v. Hidalgo Cnty., 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

To demonstrate that a particular fact cannot be genuinely in dispute, a defendant movant, except as to affirmative defenses, must (a) cite to particular parts of materials in the record (e.g., affidavits, depositions, etc.), or (b) show either that (1) the plaintiff cannot produce admissible evidence to support that particular fact, or (2) if the plaintiff has cited any materials in response, show that those materials do not establish the presence of a genuine dispute as to that fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Although the Court is required to consider only the cited materials, it may consider other materials in the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Nevertheless, Rule 56 "does not imposeon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment." Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915-16 & n.7 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 (1992). Instead, parties should "identify specific evidence in the record, and . . . articulate the 'precise manner' in which that evidence support[s] their claim." Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994).

In evaluating whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court "views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor." Sanders-Burns v. City of Plano, 594 F.3d 366, 380 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). "After the non-movant has been given the opportunity to raise a genuine factual [dispute], if no reasonable juror could find for the non-movant, summary judgment will be granted." Byers v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).

B. Qualified Immunity

When a plaintiff seeks monetary damages directly from a defendant in an individual capacity for actions taken under the color of law, the defendant may invoke his right to qualified immunity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 26 (1991); Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cty. School Dist., 649 F.3d 335, 341 n. 10 (5th Cir. 2011)(only natural persons sued in their individual capacitiesare entitled to qualified immunity). The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have...