Salazar v. Unknown Police Dog Handler (K-9), No. 5:23-CV-00054 (N.D. Tex.) Excessive Force Claim
Facts
From Salazar’s complaint and summary judgment evidence:
Date / Place: February 15, 2023, at the grandmother’s house of Plaintiff Ryan C. Salazar, in Lubbock County, Texas.
Plaintiff’s Status: Salazar was a state prisoner (or in custody) and had multiple outstanding warrants, including two felonies (evading arrest with a vehicle, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle), as well as some misdemeanors.
Officers’ knowledge: Officers knew of Salazar’s criminal history and gang affiliation.
What happened:
Salazar purportedly went unconscious (“passed out drunk”) in the back/trunk area of a car in his grandmother’s garage. He woke up to the sound of commands, officers standing over him, telling him to show his hands.
He alleges that he immediately complied by showing his hands, lying down, not moving, unarmed, and posing no threat.
Plaintiff claims Defendant Corporal Hastings deployed a police dog (named “Arlo”) into the vehicle without warning.
The dog bit Salazar on his left arm, allegedly continued biting after he was restrained/handcuffed, causing permanent damage: nerve injury, deformation, requiring hospitalization, sutures, and wound care.
Defendants’ version (from video, declarations, etc.):
Officers issued warnings and loud commands, instructing them to show their hands/surrender.
The dog bite lasted less than ~1:20 overall (approximate), including both in the vehicle and after extraction; the dog was released once Salazar’s arm was secured in handcuffs.
Salazar was noncompliant initially in some respects (officers assert he refused commands, hid in the trunk/back seat, and resisted by kicking legs) before being subdued and handcuffed.
Procedural History
Salazar sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force (Fourth Amendment) and bystander liability against multiple officers.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. They submitted bodycam video, officer declarations, medical records, and other relevant documents.
Salazar attempted to oppose via pro se filings, some responses, and replies. Defendants moved to strike some of these.
Legal Standard
Use-of-force / K9 bite claims are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard (considering totality of circumstances). Qualified immunity requires first that a constitutional violation is shown, and second that the violated right was “clearly established” at the time.
Courts need to consider what the officer knew at the moment, whether the suspect was resisting or evading, whether warnings were given, and whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, among other factors.
Court’s Decision (“End Result”)
Summary judgment granted to Defendants. The court found that Salazar failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.
The court ruled that video evidence contradicted many of Salazar’s assertions (e.g., that there was no warning, that he was compliant). Because those allegations were contradicted, they were not accepted for the purpose of summary judgment.
The court concluded that Hastings’s deployment of the dog and the duration of the bite were objectively reasonable under the circumstances (including a barricaded suspect, hiding, only partial visibility, outstanding warrants, etc.). The dog release occurred once the arm was handcuffed.
Bystander liability claims also failed — other officers in the garage either had no opportunity to observe or intervene, or because the force used was not excessive in the first place, no duty to intervene arose.
Disposition: All of Salazar’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. Salazar “take nothing” per the judgment.
Key Legal Lessons from Salazar
Video and physical evidence matter heavily: Contradictions between the plaintiff’s narrative and the video can doom an excessive force claim in summary judgment.
Resistance/noncompliance, even partial counts: Courts give weight to initial non-compliance, hiding, refusal to obey commands when evaluating reasonableness.
Duration matters, but “brief” may be enough: A dog’s bite continuing only until handcuffing and control may be viewed as acceptable, especially when officers reasonably believe the threat remains until complete control is established.
Qualified immunity is difficult to overcome without very strong precedent; the plaintiff must show that such conduct was already clearly established as unlawful. Failure to identify a case sufficiently analogous tends to favor defendants.
