Boston v. Suffolk Cnty.

Citation326 F.Supp.3d 1
Decision Date09 January 2018
Docket Number14-cv-5791 (ADS) (AKT)
Parties Robert BOSTON, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, Suffolk County Police Department, Town of Smithtown, New York, Town of Smithtown Park Police, Suffolk County Police Officers John Doe #1 to John Doe #5, Town of Smithtown Department of Public Safety Personnel and/or Park Rangers John Doe #1 to John Doe #5, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

Brill Legal Group, P.C., Attorneys for the Plaintiff, 233 Broadway, Suite 2340, New York, NY 10279, By: Peter E. Brill, Esq., Joseph P. Griffin, Esq., Of Counsel

Suffolk County Department of Law, Corporation Counsel for the Defendants Suffolk County, New York and Suffolk County Police Department, H. Lee Dennison Building, 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100, Hauppauge, NY 11788, By: Kyle O Wood, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Susan A. Flynn, Assistant Corporation Counsel

Law Office of Stanley E. Orzechowski P.C., Attorney for the Defendants Town of Smithton, New York and Town of Smithtown Park Police, 38 Southern Boulevard, Nesconset, NY 11767, By: Stanley E. Orzechowski, Esq., Of Counsel

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

SPATT, District Judge:

The Plaintiff Robert Boston (the "Plaintiff") brought this civil rights action against the Defendants Suffolk County, New York (the "County" or "Suffolk"), Suffolk County Police Department (the "SCPD") (with the County, the "Suffolk Defendants"), Town Of Smithtown, New York (the "Town" or "Smithtown"), Town Of Smithtown Park Police ("TSPP") (with Smithtown, the "Smithtown Defendants"), Suffolk County Police Officers John Doe # 1 To John Doe # 5, Town Of Smithtown Department Of Public Safety Personnel and/or Park Rangers John Doe # 1 To John Doe # 5 (together with the SCPD John Does 1 through 5, the "John Doe defendants") (collectively, the "Defendants") alleging that they deprived him of his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with medical care while in their custody.

Presently before the Court are motions by the Suffolk Defendants and the Smithtown Defendants for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" FED. R. CIV. P. " or "Rule") 56, as well as a motion by the Plaintiff to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15 to substitute certain police officers and rangers for the John Doe defendants.

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15 is denied, and the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted in part, and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Relevant Facts

On the afternoon of July 4, 2013, the Plaintiff left his home after having a dispute with his wife. He brought nine tablets of Valium

and 35 tablets of Wellbutrin with him. The Plaintiff testified that he does not remember where he went, but that he drove past his wife at some point, and ended up in Bill Richards Memorial Park in Smithtown, New York. (Dep. of Robert Boston at 47–48). While at the park, he smoked some marijuana, and swallowed nine Valium pills and an unknown quantity of Wellbutrin. He wanted to kill himself. The next thing that the Plaintiff remembers is being asked to sign a desk appearance ticket at a police station on July 5, 2013.

At about 10:19 in the morning on July 5, 2013, Town of Smithtown Park Rangers Russell Sokol ("Ranger Sokol" or "Sokol") and Joseph Paterson ("Ranger Paterson" or "Paterson") received a radio report of an individual who was on the premises without authorization. Paterson testified that there was a radio call for a suspicion person around a vehicle, who was possibly intoxicated. (Dep. of Sokol at 35).

Paterson and Sokol encountered the Plaintiff at about 10:50 a.m. The Plaintiff "appeared to be ... sleeping." (Id. at 37). The rangers awakened the Plaintiff and asked him for identification. The Plaintiff refused. He told the officers that he did not want to come out of the car because he believed they were going to arrest him. (Id. at 39). Ranger Paterson testified that the Plaintiff said that he wanted to be left alone so that he could sleep. (Dep. of Paterson at 36).

The rangers eventually convinced the Plaintiff to exit his car, and he did so without any aid from the rangers. (Dep. of Sokol at 40–41). He said that he did not know why the rangers were bothering him; he was just sleeping and did not see any problem. (Dep. of Paterson at 37). The Plaintiff cursed at the rangers and used other abusive and offensive language. (Dep. of Sokol at 45–46). The Plaintiff identified himself and the rangers took down his information. (Id. at 47).

The Plaintiff was a little unsteady on his feet, but was coherent and able to answer the officers' questions. He told the rangers that he had taken two tabs of acid and nine Diazepam pills, and that he had smoked a little weed. Rangers Sokol and Paterson had the Plaintiff sit down and asked him if he needed any medical attention or if he wanted to go to the hospital. The Plaintiff said no. (Id. at 43). Ranger Paterson asked him a series of question to assess his well-being: he asked him the name of the current president; what the weather was that day; what was the day of the week; and the current date. (Dep. of Paterson at 38).

Paterson testified that he "got responses that were exactly what [he] had asked. There was no waivering [sic]. There was nothing that arose suspicion. It just seemed like he was just very tired." (Dep. of Paterson at 39).

The rangers observed several pills lying on the passenger floor, and the Plaintiff told them that he also had weed. Rangers Sokol and Paterson recovered a quantity of marijuana from the Plaintiff's person. Paterson observed some dried vomit on the passenger seat of the Plaintiff's car. (Id. at 49). The Plaintiff later supported this point by testifying that he had to clean vomit out of his car.

The Plaintiff was placed under arrest. The Plaintiff was arrested for possession of marijuana; possession of a controlled substance; remaining upon Town Park Property while under the influence of non-prescription controlled substances; use of loud, abusive and indecent language on park property; and failure to show identification upon request.

Rangers Sokol and Paterson transported the Plaintiff to the Suffolk County Police Fourth Precinct (the "Fourth Precinct") for processing. While he was transporting the Plaintiff, Ranger Paterson explained the process at the precinct, and the Plaintiff seemed coherent. (Dep. of Paterson at 50).

At 10:55 a.m., the Plaintiff arrived at the Fourth Precinct. The Plaintiff walked into the precinct without any assistance. The desk sergeant asked the Plaintiff a series of questions: whether he needed medical attention; whether he was okay; whether he was taking any medication; and what was his pedigree information. The Plaintiff answered all of these questions, and stated that he did not need medical attention.

Sergeant Thomas Healy ("Sergeant Healy" or "Healy") of the SCPD was the desk officer at that time. He testified that he had no independent recollection of interacting with the Plaintiff. However, on the Prisoner Activity Log, Healy wrote "No" in the section that asks whether the "prisoner claims pain, injury or illness." (Prisoner Activity Log, Suffolk Defs. Ex. J). Healy also noted that the Plaintiff was unsteady on his feet, lethargic, and spoke with slurred speech.

Healy did not recall a prisoner ever failing to give a response to his questioning concerning injury or illness. He does not remember the Plaintiff ever making any statements about attempting to take his life; and testified that he would have noted such statements if they had been made, and would have sent the prisoner to the hospital. Healy testified that if a prisoner asks for medical attention, the officer to whom the request was made would bring that request to the desk sergeant's attention. While he has no independent recollection, Healy testified that the records reflect that the Plaintiff did not request medical attention while housed at the Fourth Precinct. Although Healy does not remember it, Ranger Paterson testified that he told him that the Plaintiff claimed to have ingested nine diazepam and two tabs of acid. (Paterson Dep. at 60).

The prisoner activity log shows that the Plaintiff was in custody at the Fourth Precinct from 10:55 a.m. until 3:20 p.m. The officers noted in the activity log that the Plaintiff was calm the entire time. At three different times, he took drinks of water. At 12:03 p.m., Ranger Paterson remarked on the log that the Plaintiff was "cooperative." At 3:20 p.m., the Plaintiff signed a desk appearance ticket. The Plaintiff testified that he remembered signing the desk appearance ticket. (Dep. of Robert Boston at 63–66).

After issuing the Plaintiff a desk appearance ticket, Ranger Paterson sought to bring the Plaintiff home. He did not want the Plaintiff to drive because he was very tired, but he did not want him housed overnight at another precinct because the Plaintiff had been cooperative. (Dep. of Paterson at 71). The Plaintiff had provided the officers with his home phone number, but he had told them that no one was home. Paterson asked the Plaintiff if he would rather go to a jail cell or go home and get some sleep. The Plaintiff told Paterson that he wanted to go home; specifically, he said he was tired and wanted to go to bed. (Dep. of Paterson at 75).

While he was at the Fourth Precinct, the Plaintiff never requested medical attention; never complained of any injury or illness; and never disclosed that he had attempted suicide.

Ranger Paterson drove the Plaintiff home, and Ranger Sokol followed in a separate car. Paterson parked in the driveway. He asked the Plaintiff whose cars were in the driveway, and the Plaintiff told him that the two cars belonged to him and his wife. The Plaintiff further stated that he had thought his wife was still at work, and asked Ranger Paterson to go speak with her if she was home. The Plaintiff remained in the car. The car was running, the air...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Perrien v. City of New York
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 12 Septiembre 2022
    ...upon any known parties, seek disclosures pursuant to a [FOIL] request, or otherwise act with diligence.” Boston v. Suffolk County, 326 F.Supp.3d 1, 13 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (emphasis added) (quoting Williams v. United States, No. 07-CV-3018, 2010 WL 963474, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010)). “Form......
  • Boggs v. Town of Riverhead
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 7 Noviembre 2018
    ...to deliberate indifference to the rights of those who come in contact with the municipal employees.Boston v. Suffolk Cty., New York, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1, 15-16 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (Spatt, J.); Norton, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 244; see also Jones v. Town of E. Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (expla......
  • Little v. Soulia
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 16 Junio 2021
    ...not testify he was exhibiting any visible signs of distress, of which Bleau ignored. (Dkt. No. 66-4 at 107.); cf. Boston v. Suffolk Cty. 326 F.Supp.3d 1, 20 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding issue of fact regarding deliberate indifference where the plaintiff exhibited outward signs of distress). Acc......
  • Little v. Soulia
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 16 Junio 2021
    ...not testify he was exhibiting any visible signs of distress, of which Bleau ignored. (Dkt. No. 66-4 at 107.); cf. Boston v. Suffolk Cty. 326 F.Supp.3d 1, 20 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding issue of fact regarding deliberate indifference where the plaintiff exhibited outward signs of distress). Acc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT