2006 Flood Victims’ Lawsuit against El Paso allowed by Eighth Court of Appeals
EL PASO, Texas — The lawsuit against the City of El Paso by two families that were victims of the August 1, 2006 flood can proceed, according to a recent decision by the Eighth Court of Appeals.
Represented by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA) and the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project (PDNCRP), Patricia Bustillos and Marcelina Campos are former residents of the Mowad subdivision whose families were forced to evacuate their homes after massive flooding in August 1, 2006. They applied for the relocation assistance that the City of El Paso provided to other flood victims displaced by the flood and the City’s buyout of the Mowad Subdivision. They brought a lawsuit against the City after it failed to apply the same application requirements to them that it did to other applicants and failed to provide them a written decision on their applications.
“These residents applied for assistance as soon as they knew it was available,” said PDNCRP attorney Briana Stone. “But the City ignored them and their rights to apply for this aid, thus violating their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The decision by the Eighth Court of Appeals is a victory for civil rights and sends a clear message: the City of El Paso cannot abuse its power. We are hopeful the City will reconsider its position and will follow the law.”
According to the original lawsuit, when Bustillos and Campos applied for assistance they were asked for additional proof of their claims that were not required for other applicants. The City also failed to provide them with a written decision on their applications. As a result of the latest legal decision, the women will have the opportunity to have their case heard by the trial court, almost four years after having been forced from their homes.
Added Carbajal, “All they want is to be treated in the same manner that the City treated their neighbors and other recipients of the relocation assistance. The assistance was designed to help flood victims when they were most vulnerable – soon after they lost most of their worldly possessions and had to face the added expense of moving to a new and more expensive rental property. Sadly, they have waited nearly four years for the City to review their applications for assistance. Rather than abide by its constitutional and regulatory obligations, the City has utilized procedural delay tactics and completely disregarded the suffering of these flood victims.”
Established in 1970, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. (TRLA) is a nonprofit organization that provides free civil legal services to low-income and disadvantaged clients in a 68-county service area. TRLA’s mission is to promote the dignity, self-sufficiency, safety and stability of low-income Texas residents by providing high-quality civil legal assistance and related educational services.
The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) promotes racial, social, and economic justice through education and litigation. TCRP strives to foster equality, secure justice, ensure diversity, and strengthen communities. TCRP was founded in 1990 as part of Oficina Legal del Pueblo Unido, a non-profit community-based foundation located in South Texas. The TRCP has offices in Austin (TCRP), San Juan (STP — in the Rio Grande Valley) and El Paso (PDN).
Compare the Sanders Shooting Reports
A Tale of Two Reports: The KeyPoint Report on the shooting ot Nathaniel Sanders II
Redacted version released to TCRP by the City of Austin on March 1, 2010 (pdf 2.5mb)
* * * * *
Unredacted version released to the public by the City of Austin on May 13, 2010 (pdf 1.2mb)
* * * * *
* * * * *
TCRP Press Release
City of Austin Releases Police Shooting Report in wake of TCRP Lawsuit
Report Finds Officer Used Excessive Force in Fatal Shooting
AUSTIN, TX — Under pressure from the Texas Civil Rights Project, the City of Austin finally released an independent report on a fatal police shooting, after a hearing in a lawsuit brought by TCRP. TCRP requested the City disclose the report under the Texas Public Information Act, but the City chose to keep the report secret. The City acted before the judge was to rule in TCRP’s lawsuit.
On May 11, 2009, Austin Police Officer Leonardo Quintana shot and killed Nathaniel Sanders II, and seriously injured Sir Lawrence Smith. Following the shooting, the City hired KeyPoint Government Solutions, a respected New York-based company, to investigate the shooting. The City taxpayers paid KeyPoint $50,000.
The KeyPoint report in its complete, unredacted format is available at the TCRP website along with the redacted version. TCRP has also prepared a file (in pdf format) that highlights which portions of the complete report were redacted when the City first released the document to TCRP on March 1, 2010.
Among other findings, the report concludes:
- The officers were reckless and acted unreasonably;
- Officer Quintana violated APD policy, unnecessarily used deadly force, and failed to use sound police tactics;
- Had the officers acted properly, Mr. Sanders might still be alive.
The report also reveals for the first time:
- A witness complained to APD investigators that Quintana was biased against African Americans, and the City’s investigators did not follow up on this allegation;
- Before Mr. Sanders’ death, citizens had made fourteen other complaints against Quintana, including nine complaints about excessive force, and one complaint Quintana used a taser on someone who was handcuffed.
“It’s obvious why the City didn’t want this report to get out,” said Scott Medlock, TCRP staff attorney. “The report is damning, but its release is a major victory for open government. The City tried every trick in the book to keep this report from the public. It’s pathetic it took a lawsuit to get them to change their tune.”
TCRP Files Complaint against Judge Keller for Ethics Violation
The Texas Civil Rights Project has filed a complaint against Judge Sharon Keller with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the ethics violation found against her by the Texas Ethics Commission:
According to the TCRP complaint: “On April 28, 2010, the Texas Ethics Commission imposed a $100,000 fine on Judge Keller for egregious failures to fully disclose her finances in personal financial statements she filed between 2004 and 2008. Judge Keller’s egregious material omissions from her personal financial statements bring the integrity of the Texas judiciary and of her court into disrepute and was a source of scandal to the citizens of the state.”
The TCRP complaint, signed by Director Jim Harrington, alleges that the violation found by the Ethics Commission is also a violation of Canon 4 of Code of Judicial Conduct (Conducting the Judge’s Extra-Judicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations), which reads in applicable part:
I. Compensation, Reimbursement and Reporting.
(1) Compensation and Reimbursement. A judge may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the extra-judicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge’s performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety.
(a) Compensation shall not exceed a reasonable amount nor shall it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.
(b) Expense reimbursement shall be limited to the actual cost of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s family. Any payment in excess of such an amount is compensation.
(2) Public Reports. A judge shall file financial and other reports as required by law.
TCRP asks that the Commission to take appropriate disciplinary action, as required by Article V, Section §1-a of the Texas Constitution.
Judge Keller vows to appeal record ethics fine
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
AUSTIN — Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller plans to appeal the record $100,000 fine levied against her Friday by the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to fully disclose her personal finances as required by law.
The fine against Keller surpassed the $75,000 penalty levied last year against Harris County Commissioner Jerry Eversole and the $29,000 fine given to Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht in 2008.
Keller also has been fighting to hold onto her bench against charges raised by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that she brought discredit to the judiciary by closing the court to a death row inmate’s appeals in 2007 just hours before he was executed. A special master found Keller did nothing legally wrong, but prosecutors are appealing that decision.
The ethics commission fined Keller for failing to report stock, honoraria and more than $2.4 million in real estate holdings on her 2007 and 2008 personal financial disclosure statements. Keller filed amended reports with the commission last year after news reports revealed her missing holdings.
In a statement filed with the amended reports, Keller said her father made investments for her and her son without her knowledge.
Keller to file appeal
Keller’s lawyer, Ed Shack of Austin, said the judge will file an appeal to the commission’s actions in Travis County District Court. Shack said Keller has 30 business days to file the appeal.
“Judge Keller is very disappointed by the excessive penalty assessed against her by the Texas Ethics Commission,” Shack said. “As the commission found, Judge Keller voluntarily amended her financial disclosures shortly after she was made aware of the matter. And her conduct was not intentional, but rather the product of her father’s acquisition and management of properties without any input from her.”
Craig McDonald, of Texans for Public Justice, who filed the ethics complaint against Keller in March 2009, praised the commission’s fine against the judge.
“It’s substantial, and a fine of this size can deter other politicians from playing fast and loose with their financial disclosure reports,” McDonald said.
Criminal complaint filed
McDonald also had filed a criminal complaint against Keller. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla said he will review the ethics commission finding before deciding whether to take additional action. Escamilla said it is unlikely he will file misdemeanor charges against Keller if her omissions were not intentional.
Seana Willing, executive director of the judicial conduct commission, said it is unlikely her agency will review the ethics commission filing until after appeals are exhausted.
The ethics commission decided on the fine against Keller in a closed session April 21 and made it public Friday. Keller’s reports for 2007 covered her financial activities in 2006, and the 2008 report covered her 2007 finances.
The commission said Keller in 2006 failed to report between 100 and 499 shares of stock, $61,500 in income, interests in eight properties valued that year at $2.4 million and two expenses totaling $3,760 that were accepted under the honorarium exception.
The commission said that in 2007 Keller failed to report the stock, nine sources of income totaling $121,500 and two honoraria valued at $6,010. She also failed to report the eight properties again, then valued at $2.8 million.
The $100,000 fine is unusual for a commission often criticized for issuing relatively small fines for campaign and officeholder reporting violations. The commission has given Keller until Aug. 10 to pay the fine.
Keller legally can use campaign funds to pay the fine, but there is no money in her campaign account and she cannot raise additional money until about June 2011 because she is a judge who does not face re-election until 2012. Keller could have her campaign take out a bank loan to pay the fine. Otherwise, she would have to pay the fine out of pocket.
National controversy
Keller created a national controversy on Sept. 25, 2007, when she told court clerks to close the door on appeals by Michael Wayne Richard just hours before he was executed. The U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear a case earlier in the day that could have affected Richard, and several other Texas death row inmates won stays of execution in the next several days.
The judicial conduct commission filed a complaint against Keller, but a special master said she broke no laws and should not be punished “beyond the public humiliation she has surely suffered.” Prosecutors in the case have appealed. A court hearing is scheduled for June 18.
Paso del Norte Fiesta Fronteriza Honors Local Heroes
View Slide Show of 2010 Fiesta Fronteriza
Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project announces its Fourth Annual
Fiesta Fronteriza:
Remembering Our Roots, Building Our Future
El Paso Community College
Administrative Services Building
9050 Viscount
El Paso, Texas 79925
Friday, May 7, 2010
11:30 am – 1:30 pm
Thank You, El Paso for a Fantastic Fiesta Fronteriza
Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project celebrated its fourth annual Fiesta Fronteriza: Remembering Our Roots, Building Our Future on May 7th, 2010.
This year’s event theme was Revolution Without Arms in commemoration of those civil rights heroes that have brought about change without resorting to violence. The nominees and awardees were recognized for their efforts in promoting civil rights through service, education and advocacy. Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project received numerous nominations from the community, from which finalists were selected.
The Department of Social Work of the University of Texas at El Paso received the Education Award for their efforts in training professionals that provide quality social work services and understand the El Paso-Juarez community.
The Advocacy Award was given to Mariana Chew-Sanchez for her leadership and advocacy in turning the environmental challenges we face in our community into social justice issues of broad appeal.
Hon. Alicia Rosencras Chacón received the Service Award for her efforts for the advancement of Latinos in education, employment, and public service.
Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project also recognized the El Paso Bar Association and local attorneys participating in the Parenting Order Legal Clinics with the Access to Justice Award.
During the reception, Irma Guadalupe Casas Franco received the Legends of Justice Award on behalf of the deceased Esther Chavez Cano, who dedicated her life to defending women’s rights. Valerie Geason also received this award on behalf of her mother, Leona Ford Washington. Ms. Washington dedicated her life to serving her community, demonstrated not only by a teaching career that spanned 39 years, but also by her establishment of the McCall Neighborhood Center.
Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project would like to thank the community for helping us promote racial, economic, and social justice.
City sued over Sanders shooting report
By Asher Price
Hoping to force the City of Austin to release information related to the shooting death last year of Nathaniel Sanders II, a nonprofit legal aid group sued the City on Thursday in state district court in Travis County.
The Texas Civil Rights Project says the City has failed to comply with public information rules by refusing to turn over the full results of an independent investigation into the fatal police shooting.
On May 11, 2009, Austin Police Department officer Leonardo Quintana shot and killed eighteen-year-old Nathaniel Sanders II. After an internal APD investigation found Quintana failed to turn on his squad car’s video camera to record his encounter with Sanders and Smith, the City hired KeyPoint Government Solutions to conduct an independent review of the shooting.
On February 16, TCRP’s Director, James C. Harrington, asked the City to produce a copy of KeyPoint’s report on the shooting. The City handed over a redacted version of the report.
According to the lawsuit, of the 132 pages produced, over 30 cumulative pages are redacted. Twenty-five pages of the report discussing KeyPoint’s conclusions are totally redacted.
The City has not responded to a question about the suit.
The lawsuit notes that the un-redacted portions of the KeyPoint report says “police authorities mustwork to gain and then maintain the public confidence that they are fair, unbiased and professional.”
KeyPoint also observed “there are some cases where independent outside entities are called upon to review the investigative process and their findings to ensure accountability and enhance community trust. Such is the case here.”
The Attorney General upheld the City’s decision not to disclose the redacted portions of the report, according to the suit.
“Though the KeyPoint report itself urges transparency and accountability when the police use deadly force,” claims the Texas Civil Rights Project suit, “the City ironically wants to keep KeyPoint’s conclusions secret.”
“It’s very cynical for the City to spend $50,000 of taxpayer money for a report designed to increase transparency, then make the report’s findings secret,” said TCRP attorney Scott Medlock in a news release.
Civil Rights Group Sues City Over Sanders Shooting
AUSTIN, TX — Texas Civil Rights Project has filed a lawsuit against the City of Austin, asking for them to release all the information pertaining to the Nathaniel Sanders shooting.
Sanders was shot and killed in the back seat of a parked car at an East Austin apartment complex by APD Officer Lenny Quintana who testified that Sanders’ was struggling to grab a gun in his waistband. The shooting occurred in May of 2009 and Quintana was cleared of any wrong doing by after an internal APD investigation and independent review of the shooting by KeyPoint Government Solutions.
According to the lawsuit, on February 16, TCRP’s Director, James C. Harrington, requested the City produce a copy of KeyPoint’s report on the shooting, under the Texas Public Information Act. The City timely responded to the request, but only produced a redacted version of the report. Of the 132 pages produced, over 30 cumulative pages are redacted. Twenty-five pages of the report discussing KeyPoint’s conclusions are totally redacted.
TCRP claims that the redacted portions are being withheld and that the Public Information Act specifically requires governmental bodies to produce “a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body,” such as the KeyPoint report.
The un-redacted portions of the KeyPoint report found APD’s internal investigation made “serious omissions,” and was “biased toward the involved officers in a way which undermines the credibility of the investigation and the confidence which the Department and public have placed in them.” KeyPoint acknowledged “the public . . . [is] entitled to an investigation that is legitimately pursued, fair and free of bias,” finding there is “legitimate community concern that the police department may be biased against the complainant in an effort to protect their [sic] officers.”
KeyPoint ultimately concluded “[t]he community needs reasonable assurance that their guardians are performing to the best of their ability and that their local government officials are taking reasonable steps to ensure that their police are well-trained, capable and make reasonable decisions when they exercise their ultimate authority in using deadly force. Moreover, the community needs to be able to rest assured that someone is guarding the guardians with the ability to conduct internal investigations in a fair and unbiased way.”
Though the KeyPoint report itself urges transparency and accountability when the police use deadly force, the City ironically wants to keep KeyPoint’s conclusions secret.
The lawsuit also claims that the he Attorney General upheld the City’s decision not to disclose the redacted portions of the report. As a result, TCRP and the public can only access the heavily redacted version of the report.
Press Release
TCRP Sues City of Austin to Disclose Report on Deadly Police Shooting
City Seeks to Keep Taxpayer-Funded Report Secret
AUSTIN, TX — The Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit to require the City of Austin to make public a report on a fatal police shooting. TCRP requested the City disclose the report under the Texas Public Information Act, but the City chose to keep the report secret.
On May 11, 2009, Austin Police Officer Leonardo Quintana shot and killed Nathaniel Sanders II, and seriously injured Sir Lawrence Smith. Following the shooting, the City hired KeyPoint Government Solutions, a New York-based company, to investigate and review the shooting. The City paid KeyPoint $50,000.
In October 2009, the City released a heavily redacted copy of the report. Of the 132-page report, over 30 cumulative pages are redacted. Twenty-five pages of the report discussing KeyPoint’s conclusions are totally redacted.
The un-redacted portions of the KeyPoint ironically stress the importance of APD transparency.
- Page 1: “police authorities must work to gain and then maintain the public confidence that they are fair, unbiased and professional.”
- Page 7: KeyPoint found APD’s internal investigation was “biased toward the involved officers in a way which undermines the credibility of the investigation and the confidence which the Department and public have placed in them.”
- Page 80: KeyPoint stressed “the public … [is] entitled to an investigation that is legitimately pursued, fair and free of bias,” finding there is “legitimate community concern that the police department may be biased against the complainant in an effort to protect their [sic] officers.”
- Page 131: KeyPoint ultimately concluded “[t]he community needs reasonable assurance that their guardians are performing to the best of their ability and that their local government officials are taking reasonable steps to ensure that their police are well-trained, capable and make reasonable decisions when they exercise their ultimate authority in using deadly force. Moreover, the community needs to be able to rest assured that someone is guarding the guardians with the ability to conduct internal investigations in a fair and unbiased way.”
“It’s very cynical for the City to spend $50,000 of taxpayer money for a report designed to increase transparency, then make the report’s findings secret,” said TCRP attorney Scott Medlock.
“KeyPoint’s own conclusions make releasing the entire report essential. Almost a quarter of the report is redacted. When you keep that much information secret, you’re inviting the public to speculate on what’s in there. That’s not the way to promote trust between the community and the police. What are the police hiding?”
