Gonzales v. Westbrook

What This Case Is About

This case involves the alleged use of excessive force by a 270-pound Frio County deputy sheriff against a 12-year-old, 87-pound boy during a Thanksgiving night arrest. Tony Gonzales was arrested for stealing beer, escaped from a patrol car, and was tackled during a foot chase. His leg was broken. The family sued the county under § 1983, but the court granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to establish municipal liability.

The Facts

On Thanksgiving evening 1998, 12-year-old Tony Gonzales was at a friend’s home when Frio County Deputy Sheriff Chris Westbrook and other officers responded to a call. The deputies arrested Tony, who had been drinking alcohol, for stealing beer. The boy was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car but managed to escape and ran away.

Deputy Westbrook, who weighed about 270 pounds, caught up with the 87-pound boy. What happened next is sharply disputed. Tony and his parents maintained that the boy was on the ground when Westbrook intentionally fell on him and struck him on the head with a flashlight. Westbrook and the county denied this, contending that Westbrook simply tackled Tony to effectuate the arrest of the fleeing suspect. Tony’s leg was fractured in the encounter.

The family sued Deputy Westbrook individually and Frio County under § 1983. The county moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs could not show the county’s customs and policies were inadequate. The plaintiffs countered that they couldn’t fully demonstrate a custom or policy of abuse because the county’s personnel records were in the custody of the FBI.

What the Court Decided

The court granted the county’s motion for summary judgment. Applying the Monell framework, the court required the plaintiffs to show: (1) an official policy or custom that was inadequate, (2) the policy was adopted with deliberate indifference, and (3) the policy directly caused the constitutional injury.

The plaintiffs failed on all three elements. They could not point to specific deficiencies in the county’s training or supervision policies. Their argument that the FBI had the personnel records — and therefore they couldn’t prove a pattern — was not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court noted that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish municipal liability, and the inability to access evidence does not shift that burden to the defendant.

The court emphasized that the individual excessive force claim against Deputy Westbrook remained pending. The dismissal applied only to the county.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Gonzales illustrates two important points. First, the gross disparity in size between the officer and the suspect — a 270-pound deputy versus an 87-pound child — is the kind of fact that makes an excessive force claim compelling against the individual officer. The Graham v. Connor factors weigh heavily when the “suspect” is a child arrested for a minor offense who poses no serious threat.

But second, even the most sympathetic facts against an individual officer do not automatically translate into municipal liability. Without evidence of deficient policies, a pattern of similar incidents, or deliberate indifference in training or supervision, the county walks free.

Key Takeaway

You can have a powerful excessive force claim against an individual officer — a full-grown deputy breaking a 12-year-old’s leg over stolen beer — and still lose against the county if you can’t show a deficient policy or custom. Always develop evidence of the municipality’s training, supervision, and disciplinary history early in your case. If records are in third-party custody, pursue them aggressively through discovery — their absence at summary judgment will hurt you, not the defendant.