Jonathan Garcia v. United States of America et al

Filing 85

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In light of the Courts findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court ORDERS the parties to confer and submit a Proposed Judgment. The parties shall submit the Proposed Judgment no later than April 2, 2018. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

JONATHAN GARCIA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case № 2:16-CV-01664-ODW-AGR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

On January 23, 2018, the Court held a one-day bench trial in this action. (ECF

19

No. 78.) Plaintiff Jonathan Garcia asserts damages relating to an incident on May 9,

20

2014, during which Special Agent Charles Valentine shot him.

21

Valentine is an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and was on

22

duty at the time of the incident. Garcia brings claims against the United States under

23

the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), sounding in the theories of battery and

24

negligence.

Special Agent

25

The parties submitted, and the Court admitted into evidence, testimony of the

26

parties’ direct witnesses through declarations and/or deposition testimony. The parties

27

submitted the direct testimony of: Jonathan Garcia, Special Agent Valentine, Scott

28

DeFoe, Mark Gannon, Special Agent John Eric Neal, Felix Yip, M.D., and Ron

1

Martinelli, Ph.D. (ECF Nos. 55–61.) The parties cross-examined Jonathan Garcia,

2

Special Agent Valentine, and Scott DeFoe live in the courtroom.

3

Having carefully reviewed and considered the evidence and the arguments of

4

counsel as presented at trial and in their written submissions, the Court issues the

5

following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

6

Procedure 52(a). To the extent that any finding of fact constitutes a conclusion of law,

7

it is adopted as such, and vice versa.

8
9

II.
A.

The investigation into the cocaine trafficking organization
1.

10

FINDINGS OF FACT

The DEA and the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police

11

Apprehension

12

investigation into a cocaine trafficking organization in 2014.
2.

13

Crime

Taskforce

(LA

IMPACT)

began

a

joint

In February 2014, an undercover law enforcement officer working with

14

LA IMPACT met a Hispanic female known as Alex who said she

15

routinely set up 30–40 kilogram cocaine transactions.
3.

16

The undercover officer told Alex that he had access to kilograms of
cocaine from Mexico and that he would be willing to work with her.

17

4.

18

DEA Special Agent John Eric Neal (“Special Agent Neal”) supplied the

19

undercover officer with an encrypted cell phone, which the undercover

20

officer gave to Alex.
5.

21

phone.

22

6.

23
24
25
26

The phone allowed Special Agent Neal to monitor the messaging on the

B.

Alex used the phone to contact individuals about narcotics transactions.

The cocaine transaction at Garcia’s house
7.

Alex contacted the undercover officer in early May 2014 and asked him
to provide 12 kilograms of cocaine for a deal in Montebello, California.

27
28

2

8.

1

The day before the transaction, Alex told the undercover officer that the

2

buyers were from New Jersey and that the price would be $23,500 per

3

kilogram.

4

9.

The undercover officer agreed to the price and amount.

5

10.

The undercover officer told Special Agent Neal about the deal.

6

11.

The next morning, May 9, 2014, Alex told the undercover officer that the

7

deal would happen at 737 Carmelita Place in Montebello, at 1:30 p.m. .

8

The undercover officer told this information to Special Agent Neal.
12.

9

Special Agents Neal and Valentine ran a background check on 737
Carmelita Place and learned that Garcia lived there.

10

13.

11

Special Agents Neal and Valentine viewed Garcia’s driver’s license
photo.

12
13

14. Special Agents Neal and Valentine also searched law enforcement

14

databases for Garcia’s criminal history and learned that he had been

15

charged with money laundering in New Jersey and convicted of

16

possession of a controlled substance for sale in California.1
15.

17

communicated with her using his BlackBerry phone.

18
19

Garcia had been communicating with Alex to set up the cocaine deal. He

C.

Law enforcement approaches Garcia’s house and he flees
16.

20

Law enforcement officers began surveillance of 737 Carmelita Place
around noon on May 9, 2014.

21

17.

22

In addition to the LA IMPACT officers watching the front of the house,

23

DEA agents, including Special Agent Valentine, provided perimeter

24

security around the neighborhood.

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff objects to the portions of Special Agent Valentine’s declaration regarding what he learned
about Garcia’s criminal history on grounds that the testimony constitutes hearsay and is unfairly
prejudicial and confusing. (ECF No. 68.) The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections.

3

1

18.

A DEA helicopter patrolled overhead and used the radio to report
observations to officers on the ground.

2
3

19.

Garcia was in the front yard when another man arrived at 12:30 p.m.

4

20.

The man and Garcia walked to the detached garage behind the house.

5

21.

Fifteen minutes later, Garcia walked out to the street, got in a black Jeep,
and drove it to the garage.

6
7

22.

The other man took a 15” x 15” box from the garage and put it in the
Jeep.

8
9

23.

Garcia then drove the Jeep back out to the street.

10

24.

As Garcia was moving the Jeep, Alex called the undercover officer and

11

said the buyers were done counting the money and were ready for the

12

undercover officer to bring over the 12 kilograms of cocaine.

13

25.

cocaine in about 20 minutes.

14
15

The undercover officer said he would send someone over with the

26.

A silver Range Rover with New Jersey plates arrived at 1:20 p.m. and
backed into the garage behind the house.

16
17

27.

Two men got out of the Range Rover.

18

28.

A few moments later, a red truck arrived.

19

29.

One of the men from the Range Rover got into the red truck, and the
truck began circling the neighborhood.

20
21

30.

detaining the occupants while they got a search warrant.

22
23

At that point, the LA IMPACT officers decided to freeze the location,

31.

As the officers approached the house, Garcia exited the house through a

24

back window and fled through the yards of residences adjacent to his

25

house, scaling several fences in the process.

26
27

32.

Garcia emerged on the other side of the block, in the driveway of the
residence at 740 Davis Avenue.

28

4

1
2

D.

The shooting
33.

block west of Garcia’s house, providing perimeter security.

3
4

34.
35.

The helicopter reported that Garcia was in the backyard of a tan house
with a dark-colored van parked in front.

7
8

Special Agent Valentine heard the DEA helicopter call out play-by-play
radio reports about Garcia’s movements as he fled.

5
6

Special Agent Valentine was stationed in his car on Davis Avenue, one

36.

Special Agent Valentine saw the tan house and van, got out of his car,
drew his handgun, and approached the house on foot.

9
10

37.

He heard a banging noise that sounded like a person jumping a fence.

11

38.

Special Agent Valentine was standing in the street and looking east into
the driveway of 740 Davis Avenue.

12
13

39.

Special Agent Valentine saw Garcia in the driveway, about 20–25 yards

14

away, with his body facing the street and his head looking back over his

15

shoulder at the fence behind him.

16

40.

Special Agent Valentine pointed his gun at Garcia and twice yelled,
“DEA police, get on the fucking ground.”

17
18

41.

Garcia turned his head and saw Special Agent Valentine.

19

42.

Garcia then immediately “bladed” his body, turning his right side away
from Special Agent Valentine to try to conceal it.

20
21

43.

reaching at his waistband with his right hand.

22
23

As Garcia was blading his body, Special Agent Valentine saw Garcia

44.

Once Garcia turned his right side away, Special Agent Valentine could

24

not see what was in Garcia’s hand because Garcia’s body blocked his

25

view.

26
27

45.

Garcia then backpedaled about 5–7 feet toward the porch of 740 Davis
Avenue, keeping his body bladed away from Special Agent Valentine.

28

5

46.

1

Special Agent Valentine yelled, “Get your hands out of your pocket!” at
least two times and, “Show me your hands!” at least two times.

2
3

47.

Garcia did not comply with Special Agent Valentine’s commands.

4

48.

When Garcia reached the porch, he sat down on the edge of it, with his
legs in the driveway.

5

49.

6

Special Agent Valentine could not see what was in Garcia’s right hand
because of Garcia’s body position.

7

50.

8

Once Garcia sat on the porch, Special Agent Valentine saw Garcia
moving his right elbow in a manner he interpreted as consistent with

9

drawing a pistol from a holster.

10

51.

11

Special Agent Valentine, fearing that Garcia was about to draw a gun and
shoot at him, fired two shots in quick succession.

12
13

52.

One shot hit Garcia in the jaw.

14

53.

Garcia then stood up, and as he was standing, he dropped a BlackBerry
cell phone into a planter on the porch.

15

54.

16

When Garcia was standing, he put his hand on the driveway in front of
him, and laid flat on his stomach.

17

55.

18

Special Agent Valentine called out over the radio that he had a suspect in
custody and that the suspect had been shot.

19
20

56.

Other officers arrived, handcuffed Garcia, and called an ambulance.

21

57.

Paramedics took Garcia to the hospital.

22

58.

In a planter on the porch of 740 Davis Avenue, officers found a
BlackBerry cell phone belonging to Garcia.

23
24
25

E.

Garcia’s injuries
59.

As a result of the shooting, Garcia sustained serious injuries. The bullet

26

destroyed both sides of his jaw, as well as several of his teeth and the

27

bones around his mouth. Garcia required several surgeries and medical

28

procedures following the shooting as a result of his injuries.

6

60.

1

Garcia was admitted to LAC-USC Medical Center on May 9, 2014, and

2

was discharged from LAC-USC Medical Center approximately one

3

month later.

4

F.

Garcia’s conviction and sentence
61.

5

Based on his role in the attempted drug transaction, Garcia pled guilty to

6

one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a felony, and is expected to

7

begin serving a 25-month sentence in a federal prison in June 2018.

8

Garcia’s commitment date has been delayed due to his need for medical

9

treatment as a result of the injuries he sustained during the shooting.

10
11

III.
A.

Jurisdiction and venue
62.

12

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court has jurisdiction over this FTCA case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b)(1).

13

63.

14

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b)

15

because the acts and omissions complained of occurred in this judicial

16

district and the plaintiff resides in this judicial district.

17

B.

Governing law under the Federal Tort Claims Act
64.

18

Under the FTCA, the substantive law of the state where the allegedly

19

tortious act applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). To be cognizable, the claim

20

must arise from the negligent or tortious act of a government employee

21

acting within the scope of his employment under circumstances where

22

the United States, if it were a private individual, would be liable under

23

the law of the state where the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. § 2674.
65.

24

occurring in Montebello, California.

25
26
27
28

California law governs Garcia’s claim based on the shooting incident

C.

Elements of Garcia’s battery claim
66.

To prevail on his battery claim, Garcia must show that (1) Special Agent
Valentine intentionally touched Garcia or caused Garcia to be touched;

7

1

(2) Special Agent Valentine used unreasonable force to arrest Garcia,

2

overcome Garcia’s resistance, or defend himself or others against Garcia;

3

(3) Garcia did not consent to Special Agent Valentine’s use of force; (4)

4

Garcia was harmed; and (5) Special Agent Valentine’s use of

5

unreasonable force was a substantial factor in causing Garcia’s harm.

6

D.

Elements of Garcia’s negligence claim
67.

7

To prevail on his negligence claim, Garcia must show that Special Agent

8

Valentine “had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that

9

the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”
Nally v. Grace Cmty. Church, 47 Cal. 3d 278, 292 (1988).

10
11
12

E.

Reasonable Force
68.

the plaintiff must establish that the use of force was unreasonable.

13
14

In a use-of-force case, to prevail on either a battery or negligence claim,

69.

The unreasonable force element is governed by the same standard as

15

excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Saman v. Robbins, 173

16

F.3d 1150, 1156–57 & n.6 (9th Cir. 1999).

17

70.

The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force is judged in light of the

18

totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime at issue,

19

whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer

20

or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to

21

evade arrest by flight. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

22

The reasonableness inquiry is conducted “from the perspective of a

23

reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of

24

hindsight.” Id. It takes into account “the fact that police officers are

25

often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are

26

tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is

27

necessary in a particular situation.” Id.

28

8

71.

1

The reasonableness inquiry does not require an officer to have delayed

2

their fire until a suspect turns a weapon on them. George v. Morris, 736

3

F.3d 829, 838 (9th Cir. 2013). “If the person is armed—or reasonably

4

suspected of being armed—a furtive movement, harrowing gesture, or

5

serious verbal threat might create an immediate threat.” Id.
72.

6

Under this standard, when an officer reasonably believes that a suspect is

7

about to draw a firearm and shoot the officer or another person, the

8

officer’s decision to use deadly force on the suspect is not unreasonable.

9

See id.

10
11

F.

Liability
73.

States is liable on his battery claim.

12
13

74.

Garcia did not meet his burden of proof in establishing that the United
States is liable on his negligence claim.

14
15

Garcia did not meet his burden of proof in establishing that the United

75.

Garcia did not meet his burden of proof in establishing that Special Agent

16

Valentine used unreasonable force to prevent a threat that Special Agent

17

Valentine reasonably believed Garcia posed to himself and others.

18

76.

Given what Special Agent Valentine knew about the underlying cocaine

19

trafficking operation, Garcia’s criminal history, Garcia’s participation in

20

the multi-kilogram cocaine purchase at his house on May 9, 2014, and

21

Garcia’s fleeing from his house when law enforcement officers arrived,

22

and given that Garcia refused to comply with Special Agent Valentine’s

23

repeated, loud orders to get on the ground, to show his hands, and to get

24

his hands out of his pockets, and instead bladed his body, sat on the

25

porch, and moved his right arm in a manner consistent with reaching for

26

a weapon from a holster, Special Agent Valentine reasonably believed

27

Garcia was about to draw a handgun and shoot at him. Under these

28

9

1

circumstances, Special Agent Valentine’s use of deadly force was not

2

unreasonable.

3

77.

Because Garcia did not meet his burden of proof in establishing that the

4

United States is liable on either his battery or his negligence claims,

5

Garcia is not entitled to damages.

6

IV.

CONCLUSION

7

In light of the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court

8

ORDERS the parties to confer and submit a Proposed Judgment. The parties shall

9

submit the Proposed Judgment no later than April 2, 2018.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

March 23, 2018

13
14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10