The Estate of Mauricio Jaquez v. The City of New York et al

Filing 186

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 173 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Provide Trial Dates addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Shira Siskind dated 5/15/15, filed by Richard Henderson, David McNamee, William Flores, Raymo nd Flood, Raymond Morrissey, 177 MOTION for Reconsideration , filed by The City of New York, William Flores, 171 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 169 Memorandum & Opinion, . MOTION to Reopen Discovery, filed by The Estate of Mauricio Jaquez, Ana Martinez. The motions for reconsideration are therefore DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 171, 173, and 177. The parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with three proposed trial dates, none of which shall be during January 2016, when the Court has a criminal trial scheduled. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/21/2015) (tro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
THE ESTATE OF MAURICIO JAQUEZ, by :
The Public Administrator of Bronx County :
as administrator of the Good, Chattels and :
Credit of the deceased Mauricio Jaquez, and :
ANA MARTINEZ,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------- X
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: September 21, 2015

10 Civ. 2881 (KBF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

This case arises from an encounter between an emotionally disturbed person
and several New York City Police Department officers. The encounter began when
Ana Martinez called 911 after her husband, Mauricio Jaquez, had an “emotional
breakdown.” A team of NYPD officers responded and a struggle ensued during
which Mr. Jacquez repeatedly threatened them with a knife. The officers used nonlethal force and ultimately live ammunition against Mr. Jacquez, who was killed.
On May 8, 2015 the Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment with respect to all claims except those stemming from the final bullet
fired by Sergeant William Flores.1 (ECF No. 169.) The Court concluded that with
respect to that bullet, and only that bullet, there was a triable issue as to whether
Sgt. Flores’s conduct was objectively unreasonable and thus not covered by qualified
immunity.
1

The Court had previously dismissed claims against the City of New York for municipal liability and negligent
screening, hiring, retention, training, and supervision. (ECF No. 84.)

Both parties have moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order. (ECF Nos.
171 and 177.) Both parties have also discussed, per the Court’s request, (ECF No.
174) the impact on this case, if any, of City and County of San Francisco, California,
et al. v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (2015), which the Supreme Court decided ten days
after the Court’s order partially granting and partially denying summary judgment
to the defendants. The Court has carefully considered the submissions and
DENIES both motions for reconsideration.
After reviewing the parties’ dueling motions for reconsideration and the
Sheehan case and thinking carefully about the issue, the Court remains confident in
its prior decision. The Sheehan case, while relevant, does not require a reversal of
the Court’s prior decision to grant qualified immunity to the last shot. All three
courts that evaluated Sheehan’s claims agreed that the fact that Sheehan may have
been on the ground when the officer fired the final shot did not extinguish the
officer’s qualified immunity. See Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. C
09-03889, 2011 WL 1748419, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2011); Sheehan v. City & Cnty.
of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014); Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1775.
Although this supports the defendants’ position, it is not dispositive.
The vital difference between this case and Sheehan is the extent to which the
final bullet is susceptible to being independently evaluated. In Sheehan the district
court appropriately identified the question as whether the officer objectively should
have known “when to stop shooting.” Sheehan, 2011 WL 1748419, at *9 (emphasis
added); see also id. at *3 (“Officer Reynolds then rapidly shot Plaintiff two to three

2

times, the last shot striking Plaintiff in the face.”). In contrast, in this case one of
the officers testified at his deposition that between the initial round of live
ammunition shots and Sergeant Flores’s final shot, Sergeant Flores used his radio
to call for medical assistance. See Morrissey Dep., ECF No. 114, Exh. L, 117:18120:8. Given this testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude that “‘on an objective
basis, it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded,’ in
that moment that his use of deadly force was necessary.” O’Bert ex rel. Estate of
O’Bert v. Vargo, 331 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S.
335, 341 (1986)).
The motions for reconsideration are therefore DENIED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 171, 173, and 177. The parties are
directed to confer and provide the Court with three proposed trial dates, none of
which shall be during January 2016, when the Court has a criminal trial scheduled.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
September 21, 2015

______________________________________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge

3