LAREDO — The Fourth Court of Appeals has reversed a ruling denying the city of Laredo governmental immunity from a lawsuit alleging a man was assaulted by a police officer.
The lawsuit was brought by Jorge Cigarroa, who claims he suffered several injuries that required medical intervention during his arrest.
According to the Fourth Court’s Sept. 9 opinion, Laredo Police Officers conducted a traffic stop of Cigarroa, who claimed his mother-in-law had just died and he was rushing to her house to be with his wife.
Cigarroa alleges the officers refused to follow him to his mother-in-law’s house nearby. Matters then escalated between him and the officers, and he was arrested.
“Cigarroa contends he was injured during the arrest when (an officer) grabbed and yanked him; struck him numerous times, including several times with a police baton; and shoved and smashed his face against the police vehicle,” the opinion states, adding that an officer observed the incident but did not intervene.
The charges against Cigarroa were dismissed.
In response to the suit, the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, asserting Cigarroa’s claims are barred because he initially brought an identical suit based on the same facts in federal court, and the federal lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
The city also argued that it did not waive its immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act and that Cigarroa’s first amended petition merely recasts his intentional tort claims as negligence claims by contending the officers used or misused tangible personal property in causing his injuries.
Court records show the trial court denied the city’s plea and motion to dismiss, ordering the claims to proceed pursuant to the TTCA.
The city appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction as the its alleged conduct involves intentional torts for which the TTCA expressly preserves immunity.
Justices found that Cigarroa failed to allege that the officer engaged in any other action involving tangible personal property not otherwise attributed to actions that could serve as the basis for waiver of the city’s governmental immunity.
“Therefore, we conclude Cigarroa does not allege a distinct negligence claim that does not arise out of the battery, i.e., arrest,” the opinion states. “Thus, Cigarroa’s claims are barred by the intentional tort exception.
“Based on the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and render judgment dismissing Cigarroa’s claims with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.”
Appeals case No. 04-25-00231-CV
