Beltran v. City of El Paso
2004 WL 790302, 367 F.3d 299 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A 911 operator is entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability unless their actions violate a clearly established constitutional right. Such a violation is not established by an Equal Protection claim without proof of discriminatory intent, or by a Due Process claim that fails to show a 'special relationship' or 'state-created danger' through conduct rising to the level of deliberate indifference.
Facts:
- In November 1999, fifteen-year-old Sonye Herrera called 911 to report her abusive father, Armando Herrera, resulting in his arrest for felony child injury.
- On April 16, 2000, Sonye called 911 again, telling operator Sylvia Amador that her father was drunk, had threatened her, and that she feared for her life while hiding in a bathroom.
- During the call, Sonye informed Amador that she believed her father had left the premises.
- Amador advised Sonye to remain locked in the bathroom for safety if she believed her father was still in the house.
- Amador coded the call as a priority level 4 'family violence assault' and did not include in her notes that Sonye feared for her life or the prior history of violence.
- No police units immediately responded to the broadcast.
- Armando Herrera, who had not actually left the house, subsequently shot and killed Sonye and her mother, Irene Beltran-Garcia.
Procedural Posture:
- Manuela Beltran, the victim's grandmother, filed a lawsuit against the City of El Paso and 911 operator Sylvia Amador in a Texas state court.
- Amador removed the case to the United States District Court.
- After discovery, Amador filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting a defense of qualified immunity.
- The district court denied Amador's motion, stating that disputed issues of material fact existed.
- Amador, the appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 911 operator's classification of a domestic violence call as a lower priority and her advice to the caller violate the caller's clearly established constitutional rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thereby stripping the operator of qualified immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Edith H. Jones
No. The 911 operator's actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and therefore she is entitled to qualified immunity. First, the Equal Protection claim fails because the plaintiff provided no evidence that the city's 911 classification policy or the operator's actions were motivated by an intent to discriminate against women. Under the test established in Shipp, a plaintiff must show not only a policy that provides less protection to domestic violence victims but also that gender discrimination was a motivating factor and that the policy caused the injury; the plaintiff failed to prove discriminatory intent or causation. Second, the Due Process claim fails because no 'special relationship' was created; the operator's advice to stay in a bathroom did not constitute a state restraint on liberty as required by DeShaney. Furthermore, while the Fifth Circuit has not recognized a 'state-created danger' theory, even if it did, the operator's actions constituted, at most, negligence, not the 'deliberate indifference' required for liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formidable barrier of qualified immunity for public officials, especially in the context of emergency services. It clarifies that for an equal protection claim based on police response policies to succeed, a plaintiff must prove invidious discriminatory intent, not merely a disparate impact. The opinion also confirms the Fifth Circuit's narrow interpretation of the exceptions to the DeShaney rule, declining to adopt the 'state-created danger' theory and strictly limiting the 'special relationship' exception, thereby significantly curtailing the state's liability for failing to protect individuals from private violence.
