Naranjo v. Victor, 625 F.Supp.3d 1140

On May 15, 2020, Pueblo Police Officer Brandon Victor approached a reportedly stolen vehicle alone with his weapon drawn; the driver (Robert Avila) and passenger (Sarah Naranjo) were asleep. Victor reached for the driver-side door/window; the vehicle inched forward, contacted Victor’s patrol vehicle, and Victor fired multiple rounds, killing Avila and injuring Naranjo.
Victor later claimed he was dragged and injured; hospital records showed only a minor forearm mark and his BAC was 0.05.
Plaintiffs allege Victor had two prior officer-involved shootings within ten months (July 2019 and March 2020), including a highly similar incident two months earlier, and that Victor’s conduct and reputation for aggression were well known within the department.
Plaintiffs allege the Pueblo Police Department tolerated Victor’s conduct, failed to discipline or properly train officers (including on use of deadly force against fleeing vehicles), and maintained a "blue wall of silence."
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: excessive force claim against Victor and municipal-liability claims against the City of Pueblo for failure to train and failure to discipline/supervise. Magistrate Judge recommended denying the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion; the district court reviewed de novo, adopted the recommendation, and denied the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to train	Pueblo trains officers to treat fleeing vehicles as deadly weapons even when no actual threat exists; training was inadequate and caused the violation	No duty to train for every scenario; plaintiffs cite no manual or specific policy	Complaint plausibly alleges inadequate training and deliberate indifference; claim survives 12(b)(6)
Failure to supervise / discipline	City knew of Victor’s prior shootings and reputation; failed to supervise or discipline despite complaints	Allegations insufficient to show City had notice or that prior incidents were unconstitutional	Complaint contains enough factual allegations to infer City notice and failure to supervise; claim survives 12(b)(6)
Deliberate indifference / notice	A pattern and a highly similar prior incident made the constitutional violation foreseeable	No facts show prior misconduct or City awareness to establish notice	Allegations (two prior shootings, departmental awareness) plausibly show actual/constructive notice and deliberate indifference
Causation	City's failure to train/discipline was the moving force causing Victor’s shooting	No direct causal link alleged between training/supervision and the shooting	Complaint plausibly alleges a direct causal link between municipal failures and the constitutional injury

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom and causal link)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train actionable when reflecting deliberate indifference)
Bryson v. City of Okla. City, 627 F.3d 784 (failure to train/supervise can constitute municipal policy when deliberately indifferent)
Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 (notice normally shown by pattern; narrow exceptions)
Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837 (single incident may suffice when violation is plainly obvious and recurring situation untrained)
Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277 (must allege direct causal link between policy/custom and injury)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (court’s role on 12(b)(6) not to weigh potential evidence)
Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174 (accept allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (limits on considering documents outside the complaint on 12(b)(6))