Case 5:17-cv-00245-C Document 1 Filed 10/25/17

Page 1 of 6 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
PAUL VALDERAS
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, a political
subdivision, and OFFICER BILLY
MITCHELL, individually and officially,
of the Lubbock Police Department
Defendants.

Attorneys Appearing for Plaintiff

Daniel A. Dailey (Admitted)
IL-SBN: 6312616
David L. McBride. (pending pro hac vice)
LA-SBN:35901
Tatiauna J. Holland (pending pro hac vice)
TX-SBN: 24090519

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Case No.
JURY DEMAND

Kingdom Litigators, Inc.
A Public Interest Law Firm
100 Crescent Court Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Office: (214) 422-9350
Fax: (469)736-0022
www.KingdomLitigators.com

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, PAUL VALDERAS, (“Plaintiff”) by and through
undersigned counsel, against the CITY OF LUBBOCK, a political subdivision, and
DEFENDANT BILLY MITCHELL, individually and his official capacity, (Defendant
Mitchell) (collectively “Defendants”) and each of them in the alternative, states the
following:

 Case 5:17-cv-00245-C Document 1 Filed 10/25/17

Page 2 of 6 PageID 2

INTRODUCTION
The national hysteria surrounding police-involved shootings has placed an enormous
pressure on honest cops to support dishonest cops and endure nationwide criticisms for one
dishonest officer’s conduct. Despite this reality, in the Lubbock Police Department, a few honest
men and women refused to support Officer Billy Mitchell’s (Mitchell) justification statement for
shooting Paul Valderas (Mr. Valderas) in the back three times. Those honest cops must be
acknowledged and protected against fraternal police and public pressures which often cause
officers to corroborate police reports for the interests of their departments.
On January 26, 2017, Officer Mitchell shot Mr. Valderas three times in the back although
Mr. Valderas was unarmed and not a threat. After Mr. Valderas fell to the ground, Mitchell
stated, I [Mitchell] approached… “I observed the pistol, he [Valderas] was holding, on the
ground near him.”
Surveillance video from a nearby home later emerged. The audio and video showed
Mitchell did not properly identify himself as a police officer. When Mr. Valderas realized
Mitchell was a cop, Mr. Valderas very clearly disarmed himself by placing the gun in a nearby
vehicle—inaccessible to his person. Yet, Mitchell still shot and continued shooting without
giving a single command. Mitchell even shot as Mr. Valderas was falling, helplessly, to the
ground. Mr. Valderas is now permanently paralyzed from the chest down.
It is apparent Mitchell knew the shooting was unjustified, so he lied. But more
importantly, Mitchell’s fellow officers did not support his lie. By holding Mitchell accountable,
we protect, validate, and encourage honest police, like Mitchell’s fellow officers, to continue
resisting the fraternal pressure to place departmental interests over truth.
JURISDICTION
1.

Federal jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

2.

Venue in the Northern District of Texas-Lubbock Division is proper pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1391 as the police-involved shooting occurred within this district and all Defendants
reside within this district.
PARTIES
3.

The Plaintiff, PAUL VALDERAS, is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Lubbock, Texas,

and father of five minor children.

2

 Case 5:17-cv-00245-C Document 1 Filed 10/25/17

4.

Page 3 of 6 PageID 3

The Defendant, CITY OF LUBBOCK, is a political subdivision of the State of

Texas and operates and controls the Lubbock Police Department.
5.

The Defendant, Billy Mitchell, is a sworn police officer in the Lubbock Police

Department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mitchell resides within this federal district.
FACTS
6.

The Defendant, CITY OF LUBBOCK, employed Defendant Officer Billy

Mitchell (hereinafter “Defendant Mitchell”) as a sworn police officer in the Lubbock Police
Department (LPD), and assigned him to different divisions, which included narcotics and gang
unit.
7.

An officer in the LPD narcotics unit contacted a Confidential Informant (CI) to

coerce the Plaintiff to take possession of a firearm on January 23, 2017.
8.

On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff stood outside of the CI’s vehicle when an

ordinary Chevy Tahoe approached. Defendant Mitchell exited the Chevy Tahoe but did not
identify himself as police. He immediately drew his weapon and shot at the Plaintiff five times
only yelling ‘police’ over his fire.
9.

The entire interaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant Mitchell, including the

shooting, was captured on surveillance video. The Plaintiff by reference incorporates the video
as Exhibit A.
10.

According to the video, on January 26, 2017, a random Chevy Tahoe approached

the Plaintiff as he stood on the street talking to the CI, who sat in the passenger’s seat. The
Chevy Tahoe stopped abruptly and appeared as an ambush. This, understandably, caused the
driver and the Plaintiff to fear for their lives.
11.

The CI told the Plaintiff that the individuals in the random Chevy Tahoe were

police, although Defendant Mitchell did not make any verbal commands or identify himself. The
Plaintiff immediately discarded the gun through the passenger window and away from Plaintiff’s
person to surrender. Suddenly and without warning, but after the weapon was clearly discarded,
Defendant Mitchell shot at the Plaintiff.
12.

Still, Defendant Mitchell never issued any verbal commands. Unarmed and in fear

for his life, the Plaintiff sought safety because Defendant Mitchell continued to shoot.
13.

Unarmed, the Plaintiff reactively ducked to avoid Defendant Mitchell’s bullets.

Defendant Mitchell did not stop shooting. The Plaintiff ran for safety away from Defendant
3

 Case 5:17-cv-00245-C Document 1 Filed 10/25/17

Page 4 of 6 PageID 4

Mitchell with both hands partially raised exposing the Plaintiff’s back, but Defendant Mitchell
did not stop shooting.
14.

Defendant Mitchell discharged his weapon a total of five times. Three of the five

bullets struck the Plaintiff in the back which caused instant paralysis. The fourth bullet struck
Plaintiff, while his hands were raised, directly in the middle of Plaintiff’s back which caused
him to fall. The fifth bullet struck the Plaintiff as his knees were on the ground and his upper
body ‘collapsing’.
15.

Defendant Mitchell submitted his written police report on February 1, 2017—

approximately four days after the incident.
16.

Unaware of the surveillance video, Defendant Mitchell stated that after he fired,

“he and [another officer] approached the passenger side of the vehicle [as another officer]
covered the citizens in the car, and I observed the pistol, which [Plaintiff] was holding, on the
ground near him.” The audio of the video directly contradicted this statement.
17.

Unaware of the video surveillance, Defendant Mitchell stated, “he exited his

vehicle…drew his weapon as he yelled ‘Police,’ but the Plaintiff continued to display a weapon.”
18.

The visual images of the surveillance video contradicted Defendant Mitchell’s

statement. Defendant Mitchell never identified himself as a police officer, until he fired his
weapon. According to the surveillance video, when Defendant Mitchell first shot, Plaintiff had
already discarded his weapon from his person, did not display a weapon, and his hands were
visible.
19.

Neither Defendant Mitchell or his colleagues alleged that the Plaintiff pointed a

weapon or any object at any officer or individual. Likewise, the surveillance video confirmed
that the Plaintiff did not point a weapon at any officer or individual.
20.

Three bullets struck the Plaintiff in the back. As a result, the Plaintiff is now

paralyzed from the chest down for the remainder of his natural life.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 - EXCESSIVE FORCE in
Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution - (v. Defendant Mitchell, officially and individually)
21.

At all times alleged herein, Defendant Mitchell was a sworn police officer

employed with the Defendant City of Lubbock and acting under color of law when Defendant
Mitchell shot the unarmed Plaintiff.

4

 Case 5:17-cv-00245-C Document 1 Filed 10/25/17

22.

Page 5 of 6 PageID 5

The Defendant City of Lubbock remains responsible because it authorized,

approved and controlled the conduct of Defendant Mitchell.
23.

The Defendant City of Lubbock, by and through the LPD, attempted to create a

dangerous situation when LPD officer(s) entrapped the Plaintiff into taking possession of a
stolen weapon, upon information and belief.
24.

At all relevant times alleged herein, no citizen, officer, or bystander was in

imminent fear for their life or in fear of receiving serious bodily injury caused by the Plaintiff.
25.

At all relevant times, the Plaintiff possessed the right from excessive force and all

rights granted under the U.S. Constitution, including the right not to be entrapped to commit a
crime.
26.

Defendant Mitchell used objectively unreasonable force when the Plaintiff did not

pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to Defendant Mitchell, or any other
person during the relevant time alleged herein.
27.

Neither of the two officers present with Defendant Mitchell fired because it was

not reasonable or justified under the circumstances, and no reasonable police officer would have
discharged their firearm especially when the Plaintiff’s hands were visible, and he was unarmed.
28.

As alleged herein, Defendant Mitchell did not need to fire the first two, off-target,

bullets at the Plaintiff when Plaintiff did not point a weapon at any police officer or individual.
29.

As alleged herein, Defendant Mitchell did not need to fire the third bullet while

Plaintiff was turned away from Defendant Mitchell, exposing the unarmed Plaintiff’s back to
Defendant Mitchell and Defendant Mitchell’s fellow officers.
30.

As alleged herein, Defendant Mitchell did not need to fire the fourth bullet

striking the unarmed Plaintiff in the middle of his back as the Plaintiff was completely turned
away from the Defendant and Defendant’s fellow two officers.
31.

As alleged herein, Defendant Mitchell did not need to fire the fifth bullet as the

unarmed Plaintiff was falling to the ground.
32.

Every shot fired by Defendant Mitchell was excessive and an unreasonable use of

force according to the need of effectuating an arrest on an unarmed citizen. There was nothing
Plaintiff could do to avoid Defendant Mitchell’s fire.
33.

The Plaintiff collapsed to the ground as a direct cause of Defendant Mitchell’s

bullet which struck the Plaintiff in the spinal cord causing instant paralysis.
5

 Case 5:17-cv-00245-C Document 1 Filed 10/25/17

34.

Page 6 of 6 PageID 6

Defendant Mitchell’s fellow officers never fired their weapons because there was

no immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.
35.

The force used by Defendant Mitchell was inappropriate, unwarranted and

unjustified to arrest the Plaintiff.
36.

In fact, Defendant Mitchell acted in extreme and reckless disregard for his fellow

officers, innocent bystanders, and the civilians in the vehicle who were in the line of off-target
fire from Defendant Mitchell.
37.

Defendant Mitchell knew his conduct was unlawful and excessive, so he made

false statements in his police report to justify his actions.
38.

The conduct of Defendant Mitchell constituted excessive force in violation of the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated into the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
39.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants use of excessive force, in

shooting Plaintiff three times in the back, the Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent
physical and emotional injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and all relief this court deems
reasonable and just.

Submitted: October 25, 2017
Signed:_/s/ Daniel A. Dailey
Daniel A. Dailey, Esq.
Kingdom Litigators, Inc.
A Public Interest Law Firm
100 Crescent Court Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Office: (214) 422-9350
Fax: (469)736-0022
Email: ddailey@kingdomlitigators.com
IL-SBN: 6312616
NDTX Admission: 1/23/17

6