Opinion ID: 2799721
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I didn’t see him with a firearm at all.

Text: 4 Case: 14-41003 Document: 00513036337 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 14-41003 He continued: Q. Where were the guns that you had been shooting? A. (Indicating) As I told you, there is an opening right there, and there is a dresser where my wife puts clothes, so it’s where I put them. On top of it. Q. And Victor was walking away from you towards the front of the house at the double doors? A. Correct. ... Q. Did you see Victor at the moment he was shot? A. Yes. As I told you, he was walking. Q. Right. You saw him before the officer shot his gun, you saw Victor walking away? A. Correct. Q. Then the officer you say opened the door and the door hit you on the right shoulder? A. Correct. Q. And then the officer shot Victor? A. Right at the time when he -- when he entered, he shot him. Q. So, when the door hit you, did it stop you from seeing Victor at the moment he was shot by the officer? A. No. No, because it does not close all the way. There was an opening and it’s where I was seeing. The door could not go the way because I was in between, so there was an opening. Q. And the officer came in, he said something to Victor, correct? A. Yes. He did. He said, “Hands up,” at the same time he shot him. Q. Did Victor -- was Victor looking at the officer or was he looking at the double doors going into the front of the house? A. He was not looking at him. He was facing the front -- the double doors. I think when he was shot, he tried to turn to see. ... Q. Was Victor facing the double doors to the front at the moment the officer shot him? A. That’s correct. 5 Case: 14-41003 Document: 00513036337 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 14-41003 ... Q. Did Victor have anything in his hand when the officer fired his shots? A. No, I don’t think so. Q. Prior to the moment when the officer fired his shots, had you ever seen Victor touch one of your guns that evening? A. I didn’t see him. Q. Has anyone ever said to you that they saw Victor holding one of your guns on December 31, 2013 (sic)? A. No. Q. Was Victor holding any bullets in either of his hands when the officer fired his shots? A. No, I didn’t see him. Q. Could you see Victor’s hands when the officer came in to the room? A. I saw him -- I saw him, I saw his body and his hands, and he was walking. What do you mean by that? But I didn’t see him carrying anything in his hands. Q. But could you see -- actually see his hands? A. Yes. Yes. As he was walking. Q. When the officer fired his shots, where were Victor’s hands? A. He was – he was walking. Q. Were his hands down by his sides, or were they up higher? A. His hands were not up. I cannot actually explain to you where his hands were because he was walking, but they were not up. Q. So, were they in normal as you walk with your hands towards your hips? A. Yes. When he shot him, I don’t know what went through his mind, but he kind of jerked. Now, he used to do that when he played. He liked to play, kind of like making, like, a jerk, kind of like (demonstrating) “What’s up?” But he would do that just to play, and that’s what he did when he was shot. But he didn’t raise his hands up. He kind of, like, made a sudden movement. 6 Case: 14-41003 Document: 00513036337 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 14-41003 An autopsy was conducted on Victor Fuentes on January 1, 2013. The autopsy showed that Victor Fuentes had been shot three times. Two of the bullets struck Victor Fuentes’s chest and abdomen. The medical examiner states in her affidavit that “[t]wo of the bullet wounds are consistent with Victor Fuentes standing, facing toward the officer, with his right arm outstretched and right hand pointed toward the officer, when the officer shot Victor Fuentes.” The third bullet struck Fuentes in the back of the neck, then “[a]fter perforating the skin and subcutaneous tissue, the bullet perforates the musculature of the posterior neck and posterior left side of the back before perforating the posterior left fourth rib.” “The bullet then penetrates the lower lobe of the left lung where a small-caliber, moderately deformed, copper-jacket with its base is recovered.” According to the autopsy report, “[t]he directions of the bullet are back to front, downward, and right to left.” In her affidavit, the medical examiner states that “[n]one of the bullet wounds are consistent with Victor Fuentes being upright, walking away from the officer, with his back to the officer, and with his arms and hands down at his sides, when the officer shot Victor Fuentes.” Victor Fuentes’s family brought suit against Riggle, the chief of police, and the City of Tyler. 1 The plaintiffs allege that Riggle violated Fuentes’s Fourth Amendment rights by affecting an unreasonable search of the house and by using excessive force in shooting and killing Fuentes. They also allege that Riggle violated Fuentes’s constitutional rights by demonstrating deliberate indifference to Fuentes’s medical needs in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Riggle moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified 1 The plaintiffs advised the district court at the hearing on the defendants’ motions for summary judgment that they no longer opposed summary judgment on their claims against the city and the chief of police. As such, those claims were dismissed and are not part of this appeal. 7 Case: 14-41003 Document: 00513036337 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 14-41003 immunity. The magistrate judge recommended denying Riggle’s motion for summary judgment. Noting the conflict between Riggle’s account of the shooting and Juan Fuentes’s, the magistrate stated “[c]onsistent with the Seventh Amendment, assigning comparative weight to Mr. Riggle’s and Juan Fuentes’s contradicting testimony, and weighing that testimony in light of other circumstantial evidence, is precisely the function of the jury.” The magistrate judge also rejected Riggle’s argument that, based on the other physical and testimonial evidence in the case, no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the plaintiffs. The magistrate judge continued, “Juan Fuentes is no doubt subject to impeachment at trial, both for his potential bias and allegedly inconsistent statements, but Defendant’s request that this Court weigh his testimony against Mr. Riggle’s” conflicts with the summary judgment standard. The magistrate judge found “that there is a material question of fact here: whether the decedent was holding a gun, pointed at Mr. Riggle, at the time he was shot.” The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the motion for summary judgment. Riggle filed a timely interlocutory appeal. 2