United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTINA ARMIJO CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the Court upon Defendant City of
Albuquerque's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
158]. The Court has considered the written submissions of the
parties, the record in this case and the applicable law, and
is otherwise fully advised.
56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
“[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying
each claim . . . on which summary judgment is sought.”
As our Court of Appeals has succinctly stated:
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . .the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material
if, under the governing law, it could have an effect on the
outcome of the lawsuit. A dispute over a material fact is
genuine if a rational jury could find in favor of the
nonmoving party on the evidence presented.
Adamson v. Multi Community Diversified Serv., Inc.,
514 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir. 2008).
case was consolidated with a related case, Civ. No. 13-00574
MCA/KMB. As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order all claims against all Defendants in these
consolidated cases have been dismissed with the exception
Count I (against Defendant Pitzer) and Count II (against
Defendant City of Albuquerque) in Civ. No. 12-1295. The Court
previously determined that Plaintiff has come forward with
evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find in
Plaintiff's favor as to Plaintiff's claim that
Officer Pitzer subjected Plaintiff to constitutionally
unreasonable force, under two alternative theories (Count I).
[Doc. 121] Plaintiff's municipal liability claim against
the City (Count II) is the subject of the instant motion.
evidence on which the Court relied in denying Defendant
Pitzer qualified immunity is summarized in the Court's
May 28, 2014, Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. 121
at 3-6] and will not be repeated. The sufficiency of that
evidence to establish genuine issues of material fact as to
the unreasonableness of Officer Pitzer's use of deadly
force is the law of the case. Tenorio v. Pitzer, 802
F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2015) (upholding denial of summary
judgment on qualified immunity).
September 2010, the City commissioned the Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF) to conduct an examination of “the
conditions that may be associated with what seems to be a
high rate of police-suspect encounters that involve the use
of force by Albuquerque police officers.” PERF issued
its report on June 23, 2011. PERF concluded that
“although officer-involved shootings recently have
increased, both violent crimes and assaults on officers have
been on a downward trend.” PERF noted that despite
various measures taken by the Albuquerque Police Department
(APD), “the recent spate of officer-involved shooting
events continues.” On July 19, 2016, the Court ruled
that, pursuant to Fed. Evid. Rule 803(8), a report prepared
by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil
Rights Division, is admissible for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1). [Doc. 155 at 2] The DOJ reportincludes the
1. Longstanding deficiencies have allowed a culture of
indifference to constitutional policing to develop within
2. APD officers too often use deadly force in an
unconstitutional manner in their use of firearms.
3. APD officers often use deadly force in circumstances where
there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily ...