Judge denies motions to dismiss in Mike Ramos civil suit

In a Sunday ruling denying qualified immunity to the Austin police officer who fatally shot Mike Ramos, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman sharply criticized the city’s handling of excessive force incidents.

The ruling stems from the civil suit filed against APD officer Christopher Taylor and the city of Austin by Brenda Ramos, whose son was shot and killed by Taylor on April 24, 2020. The suit contends that the city and Taylor violated Ramos’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Each defendant filed separate motions to dismiss the case.

Taylor’s lawyers had argued he should be shielded from the suit via qualified immunity because he said he feared for his life. But the judge rejected the argument and found “the plaintiff’s complaint repeatedly and plausibly alleges that Ramos posed no immediate danger” and therefore Taylor would not qualify for the immunity given to officers when making split-second decisions. His motion to dismiss was denied.

The city also moved to dismiss the seven claims made by Brenda Ramos that the city used or condoned disproportionate use of force against people of color, failed to train, failed to supervise, chose not to intervene to stop excessive force violations, chose not to investigate excessive violence, and made the deliberate choice not to discipline officers for excessive force.

Pitman granted part of the city’s request, and dismissed the first four of those claims. However, he declined to dismiss the final three. That means the suit, pending appeal, can go forward against Taylor and the city on the three remaining claims.

Pitman accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the city should have disciplined Taylor after a 2019 incident in which he and another officer shot and killed Mauris DeSilva as the neuroscientist suffered a mental health episode at his residence.

“In light of the fact that APD allegedly failed to discipline officers for conduct that a grand jury found sufficient to warrant an indictment for murder, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that APD maintained a deliberate policy of improperly disciplining officers for excessive force,” Pitman wrote.

The judge accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the city knew of the shootings and should have taken action. “Given the notoriety of the shooting, as well as the fact that APD briefed the shooting to the local media, it is more than plausible that the city knew of the shooting but deliberately chose not to discipline the officers involved,” he wrote.

Pitman also agreed that the plaintiff plausibly alleged and can argue at trial that the failure of the city and APD to discipline Taylor directly resulted in the death of Ramos.

“In both instances, Taylor shot an unarmed man, and it is reasonable to infer that the city’s failure to sanction the shooting of Dr. DeSilva implicitly condoned APD’s excessive use of force,” he concluded.

Ramos’ attorney Scott Hendler told the Austin Monitor that the ruling shows there is a need for “paradigm shifts” both within APD and the city manager’s office.

“There is no infrastructure in place to discipline these officers,” Hendler said. “They wait until the criminal process runs its course, and by the time that happens, their civil service process expires. They build in this plausible deniability and they are sitting on their hands. It’s time for some real institutional change.”

The Monitor reached out to the city for comment and a city spokesperson said, “The City appreciates Judge Pitman’s careful consideration of the motions.  As the ruling suggests, one claim against the City can now proceed to the discovery stage of litigation.”

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.