THERON RHOTEN, et al.,Plaintiffs,v. BRENT STROMAN, MANUEL CHAVEZ, ABELINO “ABEL” REYNA, CITY OF WACO, TEXAS, McLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS, ROBERT LANNING, JEFFREY ROGERS, PATRICK SWANTON, STEVEN SCHWARTZ, and CHRISTOPHER FROST,

Courthouse News ^ | 3/31/2020 | ALAN D ALBRIGHT

[Elderberry]

Before the Court are:

Defendants Frost and Schwartz’s Motion to Dismiss(ECF Nos. 57& 76);the City Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 58& 76);Defendants Reyna and McLennan County’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 59& 78);and the respective responses, replies,and sur-replies thereto. The Court, having considered the Motions and applicable law,finds that the Motions should be DENIED or DENIED in PART and GRANTED in PART as discussed below.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case stems from the Twin Peaks restaurant incident on May 17, 2015.Members of the Bandidos and Cossacks Motorcycle Clubs, along with hundreds of other motorcycling enthusiasts,converged on the restaurant. Tensions between the Bandidos and Cossacks erupted in a shootout that left nine dead and many injured. In the aftermath of the incident, police arrested 177 individuals on charges of Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity. The probable cause affidavit in support of the arrest warrants was the same for each of the 177 arrestees, and a justice of the peace set bond for each of the arrestees at one million dollars. Only one of the criminal cases ever went to trial(the defendant in that case is not a party to the instant action), and those proceedings ended in a mistrial. The state eventually dropped all remaining charges against the arrestees. The plaintiffs in this case, Theron Rhoten, Jonathan Lopez, Ryan William Craft, Jim Albert Harris, Bonar Crump, Jr., Juan Carlos Garcia, and Drew King,were arrested pursuant to the same probable cause affidavit as the other arrestees.

The plaintiffs bring this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They allege that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining arrest warrants based on a fill-in-the-name affidavit that lacked probable cause. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be free from unlawful arrest.

[Prolixus]

Bottom line:

The claims that are not dismissed and that remain are:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Franks claim against Defendants Stroman, Lanning, Reyna,
Chavez, Rogers, Schwartz, and Frost;

(2) Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims against Defendants Stroman, Lanning, Reyna, Chavez,
Rogers, Schwartz, and Frost;

(3) Plaintiffs’ bystander liability claims against Defendants Stroman, Lanning, Reyna,
Chavez, Rogers, Schwartz, and Frost;

(4) Plaintiffs’ Pembaur claims against the City insofar as they relate to the surviving claims
against Defendant Stroman.

SIGNED this 31st day of March 2020.

[PAR35]

Thanks for the summary and the update respectively.

[easternsky]

Thanks so much for the update ,much appreciated

[KarlInOhio]

I didn't know who was who so I found the list of names and positions on another site.

Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman;
Waco police detective Manuel Chavez;
McLennan County prosecutor Abelino “Abel” Reyna;
Waco Assistant Police Chief Robert Lanning;
former Waco Police detective of the year and local gang expert Jeffrey Rogers:
Waco Police Public Information Officer Patrick Swanton;
Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal Investigations Division Lieutenant Steven Schwartz;
and Department of Public Safety Special Agent Christopher Frost.

[Spktyr]

Just to remind everyone, Waco has *still* refused to release the full ballistics or autopsy results from the original incident. They’ve actually dismissed cases they claimed were open-and-shut rather than produce them. It smells to high heaven.

[eyeamok]

They should have all been tried, convicted and executed for the Mass Shooting they did already.

[Gay State Conservative]

Later

[Prolixus]

My pleasure and hoping CBoldt will chime in with his take on the case.

[Lurker]

You forgot someone.

L

[Prolixus]

LOL X 100

[Prolixus]

Don-o should be pinged on this too.

[PAR35]

I think we all know who WON’T chime in....

[PAR35]

I think TG takes the position “No pay, no work”.

[Hulka]

Agree—all “outlaw” cowardly bikers should pay for their crimes.

They are punks, all.

[Prolixus]

Chiming in would be admitting they were wrong.

[Stanwood_Dave]

I'm not a schooled trained attorney, I don't play one on TV or YouTube.

Have been to my Washington State Supreme Court 4 (four) times, Civil Matter's, (made case law 3 out of 4, all on the losing side of trying to form New County{s}) and I'm up on my "42 U.S.C. § 1983" claim's, with that as a backdrop, I give this judge many prop's he know's this will be going up the ladder, I agree with most of his finding's, I'll just mention Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver, and that of what is called "A Complaining Witness," when the (Judge touches this via another case, but I believe he drop's the ball in this regard.) The Implied Immunity Defense, does not support a TRUTH DEFICIT Disorder, response (A.K.A. When A Cop etc., Lie's to get an A Warrant) was up held by the 9th, Circus no less. Also pointed out by the judge in this case via a 5th circuit decision, but on slightly different grounds.

Yes I know based on the Order signed by the Judge {Alan D. Albright,} that ruling's from the 5th circuit are controlling in this matter.

I'm hoping the lawyer's in this case will do some basic legal research, now that they been allowed to open the door so to speak.

[Cboldt]

Thanks for the heads up. The case moves forward, discovery will occur. Spokesman Swanton is off the hook.

The court does not call the “cookie cutter treatment” (well beyond the day or two following arrest) a “pattern.” Seems a “pattern” can only develop over time, when applied to totally unrelated parties.

And too, extended detention is also excused because the accused were not deprived of counsel, access to court, speedy trial rights (what a joke that one is), or the right to file habeas corpus motions. This judge does suggest that plaintiffs might get some traction here, but doing so requires “meaningful discussion.”

Mixed bag. Plaintiffs know how to appeal, and I think, having brought this along this far (how many years has it been?), who knows how determined or how tired they are.

This judge also notes that none of the plaintiffs brought a defamation claim, even though many note their reputations were harmed.

[Prolixus]

Thanks for your opinion!