Estela Manteca died after being attacked by her son's known vicious dogs.
The Complaint
Pharr, TX - On January 3, 2025, a daughter and a granddaughter of a 91-year old woman killed by her son's pack of vicious dogs in 2023 filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Pharr, Texas seeking $100 million in damages. The plaintiffs brought the action against the city "for the gross failure of its public works division to protect Estela Manteca from a foreseeable and preventable attack by a large pack of vicious dogs owned by her son, Alex Aranda, with whom she resided," states the Complaint.
All four dogs involved -- Ringo, Billy, Casper, and Bonita -- had been declared "vicious" by the city a year earlier for attacking another person. The Complaint alleges the city "exhibited a pattern of deliberate indifference, neglecting to take reasonable measures to mitigate the known and escalating threat, ultimately resulting in the tragic and avoidable injuries on January 10, 2023," and her death on May 6, 2023. The Complaint states the indifference is "so egregious it shocks the conscience."
The federal lawsuit alleges the city's conduct, "rooted in inadequate supervision and training," constituted a violation of her civil rights.
Manteca sustained catastrophic injuries in the violent dog attack, leaving her in a coma and requiring the amputation of both legs -- bilateral leg amputations -- which ultimately led to her death. "Her arms, chewed to the bone, underwent extensive skin graft procedures that failed to heal adequately, and medical experts anticipated that they too might have required amputation had she survived," states the Complaint. The Complaint shows her graphic injuries in Exhibit 1 (which we specifically excluded).
The Complaint states Manteca was a "vulnerable citizen, fearful and intimidated by her son" and that "her elderly and fragile condition created an environment of heightened danger." Both facts were made known to city officials by family members. On January 24, 2022, the city declared the dogs "vicious" requiring "confinement, a leash and muzzle, proper signage, and insurance" but the city "failed to follow up to ensure compliance with these requirements, allowing the danger to persist unchecked."
Four days before the attack, on January 6, 2023, the city issued a Notice of Impoundment for Destruction for Ringo for a separate attack. "Despite this urgent notice, the City failed to act, leaving Ringo and the other dangerous dogs on the property" where they would later fatally maul Manteca, states the Complaint. "The actions and inactions of the Defendants constitute egregious misconduct" and a "pattern of reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of residents under their care."
"33. Defendants exhibited flagrant incompetence in their handling of the repeated reports concerning the dangerous dogs Ringo, Billy, Casper, and Bonita - the appalling neglect demonstrated by failing to enact timely measures to protect Estela Manteca is indicative of a severe breach of duty.
34. Such inexcusable oversight not only heightened the imminent risk faced by Manteca but also ultimately led to her tragic and avoidable death.
35. By consistently disregarding reports of dangerous conditions and ignoring the known threat posed by Ringo, Billy, Casper, and Bonita, the Defendants displayed a blatant failure to act."
Further, the city continues to allow Aranda to be a dog collector on the same property, located in the 600 block of East Sam Houston Boulevard. Since the fatal attack, "reports indicate that he has since accumulated another large number of dogs on the same property, perpetuating the potential for similarly horrific incidents," states the Complaint. "The City of Pharr has been notified again by the family and has yet to remove this new set of dogs which are on the property at this time."
The causes of action include, "deprivation of substantive due process and equal protection" under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Count I: Monell Claim - failure to train and supervise; Count II: Deliberate and indifferent conduct that shocks the conscience; Count III: Age-based discrimination and Count IV: State-created danger. The plaintiffs seek an award of "no less than one hundred million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages," states the Complaint.
Governmental Immunity
Suing a city or county requires piercing governmental immunity. This process is meant to be formidable, or else cities would be mired in endless litigation, where taxpayers would be forced to compensate an endless number of tort victims. Further, no governmental entity -- no city, county, state, or the federal government -- can be sued on grounds that it has not consented to. That is, "The king can do no wrong," which is an age-old legal maxim. In this case, it appears that no Texas statute would authorize this lawsuit, thus, the plaintiffs' attorneys have turned to the Civil Rights Act.
In an email correspondence with dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips about this lawsuit, he shared, "When the defendant is a city, as in this case, the grounds must be set forth in a statute. For example, in Alvarado v. City of Los Angeles, the grounds for the thrust of the case were established by a statute that says any city can be sued if it fails to do a mandatory duty." In Alvarado, the city broke the state's statutory mandatory bite disclosure law by not disclosing the bite history of the dog to the adopter.
Regarding filing the case under a civil rights violation, Phillips shared, "Since it is a federal law, it doesn't matter whether Texas gives consent or not. However, what matters is whether there is a civil right to law enforcement in the form of animal control. No court has ever said yes to that." His comments also pertain to the federal lawsuit filed against the city of San Antonio due to the city's "malfeasance" and "gross misconduct" after Ramon Najera was killed by known vicious pit bulls.
The Four Dogs
Exhibits show that Aranda was ordered to appear in court on January 17, 2023 for animal control violations including, "Dog Bite on Human." The sex, breed and coloring are listed for all four dogs -- Ringo, Billy, Casper, and Bonita -- along with a photograph. The dogs are a variety of "shephard" (sic)1 and terrier mixed-breeds. Five other dogs were also seized, including a young pit bull-mix and a stray "shephard mix" (sic) with a brachycephalic skull shape that had been declared vicious in 2022.2
All nine dogs had been declared "vicious" in January 2022, a year before the fatal attack, because each had "recently severely attacked and injured a human being." At that time, Aranda was instructed to turn the dogs into animal control or ordered to comply with the requirements and conditions of owning a vicious dog. The requirements include confinement conditions, leash and muzzle when outside of kennel, signs displaying "vicious animal on premises," and proof of liability insurance.
The Dog Owner
Interestingly, in 2018, five years before Aranda's dogs killed his mother, Aranda appeared twice in local media about a “stolen dog” issue. KRGV reported that Aranda was a veteran suffering from PTSD who was searching for his “stolen” comfort pet, a chihuahua named "Wheezle." Aranda reported his stolen dog to the Pharr Police Department. The property seen in the news footage is the same property where his collection of large dogs attacked his mother in January 2023, ultimately causing her death.
Wheezle, who was not involved in the fatal mauling, was reunited with Aranda a few days later, which prompted more news coverage. "I feel at peace," Aranda said after being reunited with his dog. "I feel at ease. Instead of taking that medication, I worry about taking care of him." By January 2022, four years later, Aranda owned nine dogs declared "vicious" after "severely" attacking a person. At least four of those "vicious" dogs proceed to inflict the deadly attack on his mother in January 2023.
Summary
The Complaint stresses that family members repeatedly filed complaints about Aranda's dogs to the Pharr Police Department, its Public Works Department, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, warning of the eminent danger these dogs posed to Manteca, but the city "failed to investigate or intervene in any meaningful way, despite the clear and escalating danger." It is unknown if the family had any recourse through court action to remove the dogs from the property.3
The simplest and safest solution would have been for Alex Aranda to surrender his nine dogs declared "vicious" to animal control back in 2022.
The Complaint states "dereliction of duty" 11 times. But what type of duty? Was it a "mandatory" duty like it was in Alvarado, or was it "discretionary?" In Alvarado, because the state had passed a mandatory bite disclosure law, the city had a mandatory duty to disclose the dog's bite history to the adopter. By failing to do so, the city broke the law. 99 days later, the dog "shredded" Alvarado's arms. The city settled the case for $7.5 million because their defense of "discretionary immunity" failed.
It does "shock the conscience" that the city had declared Aranda's nine dogs "vicious" a year before the fatal mauling, and that even after multiple complaints, allegedly, did not follow up to ensure his compliance of owning a vicious dog, such as proper confinement, signage and insurance. On a local or state-level, were such actions mandatory or discretionary by the city? On a federal level, is there is a civil right to law enforcement in the form of animal control? The answers to both may be dispiriting.
Three dogs identified in the federal lawsuit against the city of Pharr about known vicious dogs.
Two dogs identified in the federal lawsuit against the city of Pharr about known vicious dogs.
Four dogs declared vicious by the city of Pharr a year before the fatal dog mauling.
2German shepherds have dolichocephalic skull shape (long-headed), the most elongated. Other shepherd herding breeds, such as the Australian cattle dog and Australian shepherd, have mesocephalic skull shape (medium-headed). Pit bulls and mastiff breeds have brachycephalic skull shape (short-headed) | Image of skull shapes and breeds.
3Property records show that "Estella M Aranda" was the sole name listed on the property, though records did specify "Aranda Lot 1." We could not locate records for "Aranda Lot 2." There is a second dwelling on the property. Animal control records state that Ringo and Casper were "secured in a secondary home on the property" after the fatal attack.
Related articles:
06/15/24: Lawsuit Filed After Los Angeles Animal Services Failed to Disclose a Dog's Bite History...
03/08/24: Man Charged After Vicious Dog Attack Left Woman with Life-Altering, Catastrophic...
03/03/20: Settlement Reached in Dog Mauling Death; Lawsuit Against Former Dog Warden...
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.
The family publicly accused the son of intentionally killing his mother, in the funeral fundraiser. Yet he continues to reside in her house with a pack of dogs. Evil people will perpetrate and get away with any brutality if no authority can or will be asserted over them.
Want to get away with murder? Use dogs as your weapon.
I think they’re blaming the wrong person here.they should solely blame her son Alex .he they know he have dangerous dogs but they still let her lived with him.like why won’t they let her lived with her daughter or granddaughter or assisted living .why did they choose him over any other family members.
If he really cared about his Chihuahua he wouldn’t have a pack of large, vicious dogs around to kill it.
This exemplifies the price of NOT putting vicious dogs down and giving them endless opportunities to kill.
The real answer is pits should not be pets anymore so than alligators, tigers or bears; and people who insist on having them should have to meet the same containment and insurance standards.
I’ll bet that he didn’t give two hoots about that chi. He was probably using it as a fundraising prop.
Does anyone looking at the pictures believe those dogs are German shepherd dogs or any variety of shepherd?
Certainly I hope they don’t go into statistics as shepherd dogs. I can accept them calling pitbulls terriers, as the breed is American pitbull terrier. However, personally I think terriers are cute little hairy dogs.
I assume the elderly woman felt like she had no place to go so she could have a safe place to live. I don’t think criminal charges have been levied against the dogs’ owner
Yes. We are disturbed by this. It could be geographical, something about Mexico/Texas “border dogs.” There is a “default” shepherd-mix, as opposed to a default mixed-breed. A “shepherd mix” isn’t a German shepherd mix, just like a “terrier mix” isn’t a cute toy terrier breed (in the case of a fatal mauling).
They look like they have some Boxer in them (their complexion, etc.). The issue now-a-days is that people are mixing all types of dogs together. I don’t know if this contributes to their “attacking” behavior, however, many stories are coming out with all of these mixed type dogs (especially with pits, staffies, bullies, & mastiffs) attacking people.
Another sad ending by the pit cult and their demons. Like others have said it’s convenient and suspicious how his monsters killed his mother and he will most likely end up with her home. Seems we have seen this scenario before. The new murder weapon could be on the rise.
And yes lots of guilty around but I am hoping the city pays a steep financial price. I have been saying for far too many years that financial pain may bring changes.
I don’t see this going anywhere.
Looks like she was the owner of the property.
As such she could have had her son trespassed off of the property and then singed the dogs over to the pound.
Or she could have told him he could stay but the dogs had to go.
Instead it appears she allowed him to fill her lot up with dogs and those dogs killed her.
Sadly we don’t have a civil right to not be mauled to death by dogs.
More and more it seems dogs have more rights than people.
I would love to be wrong but I just don’t see this going anywhere.
I agree with other commenters that the family should be going after the son.
I suspect he has much shallower pockets than the city.
I’ve seen similar scenarios in this neighborhood. Goes like this:
Upstanding homeowner has rotten kids and/or grandkids. The rotten ones move in, take over the place, and intimidate the homeowner into submission.
In other words, it’s elder abuse.
That is exactly what happened here. We looked closely at the houses, neighborhood, and the dogs in the area not wanting pit bulls. No signs of large dogs, a few small ones belonging to people we talked and met. Then one person suddenly sold, and we had huge dogs next door. At least they are behind a fence but one was so aggressive it has caused lasting damage to our relationship with the neighbor. It was not my job to try and make friends with a raging 130-pound dog. Then someone else had family move in, guess what they brought pits. Then found out one home the place looked quiet and decent because the son had been in jail for 2 years. Moves in with grandma, there are pit bulls. Same in yet another house. Grandma had her yorkies that you only saw in the window disappear, sure we know what happened to them. Now I don’t even garden in the front yard unless someone else around if I sound the alarm.
Or her kids could have called social services about a threat to her.
It sounds like they did:
“The Complaint stresses that family members repeatedly filed complaints about Aranda’s dogs to the Pharr Police Department, its Public Works Department, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, warning of the eminent danger these dogs posed to Manteca, but the city “failed to investigate or intervene in any meaningful way, despite the clear and escalating danger.””
The victim was 91 years old. I cannot stress enough the fact that this woman most likely lived her last days in fear and hopelessness.
Dr. Duke, I highly doubt this poor victim had any say in what her son did or how many dogs he owned. There is a balance of power between a parent and their children. As a parent ages, that balance tips so that the children have more power and the parent has less. The son did exactly what he wanted.
Just a quick update. Though we did not find property records for the son on the county tax accessor website, he is shown as #2 on the property (as in there were 2 structures) in an internet search. There was also a “power of attorney” request 9 days after the attack (1/19/23) to remove 3 dogs that allegedly were not involved in the attack (See: page 8). So, while the victim was incapacitated in the hospital, there was a legal order, via power of attorney, to remove the remaining dogs on the property. It’s unclear if the city will respond to any specific allegations in the lawsuit, or if they will just move to have it dismissed.
Shepherd mixes? LOL, those are ALL pit mixes, it’s so obvious.