Martha Romero v. City of Grapevine, Texas
888 F.3d 170
5th Cir.2018Background
- Officer Robert Clark pursued Ruben Garcia-Villalpando after responding to a suspected commercial burglary; Villalpando fled in a vehicle, drove recklessly on a busy highway, and eventually pulled onto a narrow exit-ramps shoulder.
- Clark treated the stop as a felony stop, drew his weapon, repeatedly ordered Villalpando to keep his hands visible and stay by the vehicle; dash cam shows Villalpando reach his right hand into the car at least once and repeatedly fail to comply with commands.
- Villalpando exited his vehicle, walked slowly toward Clark on the narrow shoulder adjacent to fast-moving traffic while sometimes lowering his hands, and twice said to Clark “kill me.” Clark fired two shots when Villalpando came very close; Villalpando was unarmed and died later.
- Romero (surviving family and estate representative) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, inadequate training/supervision, deliberate indifference to medical needs), § 1985, and Texas wrongful death/survival claims; district court dismissed claims against City of Grapevine and Chief Salame and left only the § 1983 excessive force claim against Clark.
- The district court limited discovery to qualified immunity issues and granted Clark summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds; Romero appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark used constitutionally excessive (deadly) force | Romero: Clark’s shooting was unreasonable; Villalpando was unarmed and not an immediate threat | Clark: Circumstances (fleeing from suspected felony, reaching into car, disobeying commands, approaching on narrow shoulder next to traffic) made deadly force reasonable | Held: No Fourth Amendment violation; use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances |
| Whether Clark is entitled to qualified immunity | Romero: Right to be free from deadly force here was clearly established | Clark: Even if force were excessive, no clearly established law applies to these specific facts | Held: Qualified immunity applies; Romero failed to show violation or clearly established right |
| Municipal/supervisory liability against City and Chief Salame (failure to train/screen) | Romero: City/Salame liable for inadequate training/screening leading to constitutional violation | Defendants: No underlying constitutional violation; thus no municipal liability; insufficient causal link alleged | Held: Claims dismissed—municipal liability cannot stand absent an underlying constitutional violation |
| Other claims (§1985, medical indifference, state claims) | Romero raised conspiracy and medical indifference and state wrongful death claims | Defendants moved to dismiss; Romero did not press these issues on appeal | Held: Those claims were dismissed by district court and are waived on appeal for lack of appellate argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force permissible when officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (qualified immunity two-step review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity shields all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (clearly established right must be defined with specificity; officers entitled to qualified immunity when law not clearly established)