Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Collie v. Barron

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

July 21, 2017

DAVID B. COLLIE, Plaintiff,
v.
HUGO BARRON, ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion of defendant Hugo Barron ("Barron"} for summary judgment. The court, having considered the motion, the response of plaintiff, David B. Collie, the reply, the record, the summary judgment evidence, and applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be granted.

         I.

         Plaintiff's Claims

         The operative pleading is plaintiff's first amended complaint filed April 18, 2017. Doc.[1] 30. Pertinent to Barron, Plaintiff alleges:

         On July 27, 2016, at approximately 11:55 p.m., the City of Fort Worth received a 911 call regarding a robbery committed by two black males. The first suspect was in his teens or early 20's, 6'l" tall and weighed approximately 180 pounds, having a small "afro." The second suspect was 6'4" tall and also in his teens or early 20's. Doc. 30 at 4-5, ¶ 19.[2] Barron, an off-duty Fort Worth Police Officer wearing his uniform and driving a police car, searched apartment complexes in the area. Doc. 30 at 5, ¶ 20. Upon seeing plaintiff, who was 33 years old, 5'6" and 150 pounds, Barron got out of his police car and shot plaintiff in the back seven seconds later. Barron did not use cover, did not give clear commands, did not call or wait for additional law enforcement personnel, did not use additional illumination, did not warn plaintiff he would shoot, and did not determine whether plaintiff posed a threat to safety before shooting plaintiff. Doc. 30 at 5, ¶ 20. The bullet struck plaintiff in the back, punctured a lung, and severed his spine. Doc. 3 0 at 6, ¶ 20. According to internal affairs interviews, Barron and another officer accompanying him, Vanesa Plores ("Flores"}, were yelling potentially conflicting commands at plaintiff. Doc. 30 at 6, f 21. Plaintiff was charged with aggravated assault on a public servant, which was ultimately resolved in plaintiff's favor. Doc. 30 at 7, ¶ 23.

         Plaintiff's only remaining claim against Barron is for use of excessive force. Doc, 46.

         II.

         Ground of the Motion

         Barron asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity from the claim asserted by plaintiff.

         Applicable Legal Principles

         A. Summary Judgment

         Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (198 6). The movant bears the initial burden of pointing out to the court that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986). The movant can discharge this burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting one or more essential elements of the nonmoving party's claim, "since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 323. Once the movant has carried its burden under Rule 56(a), the nonmoving party must identify evidence in the record that creates a genuine dispute as to each of the challenged elements of its case. Id. at 324; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ("A party asserting that a fact ... is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record ...."}. If the evidence identified could not lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party as to each essential element of the nonmoving party's case, there is no genuine dispute for trial and summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio., Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 597 (1986). In Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy Sys., Inc. v. Cotten, the Fifth Circuit explained:

Where the record, including affidavits, interrogatories, admissions, and depositions could not, as a whole, lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.