Butterworth v. Town of Greece
| Decision Date | 22 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case # 20-CV-6162-FPG |
| Parties | ROBERT C. BUTTERWORTH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF GREECE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Plaintiffs Robert C. Butterworth, Michelle Y. Butterworth, and Ryan E. Butterworth (collectively, the "Butterworths") assert claims against Defendants the Town of Greece, the Greece Police Department, the Town of Webster, the Town of Webster Police Department, A. Kirkpatrick, and Joel Paige under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New York's Constitution, and common law. ECF No. 12. Now before the court is a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, filed by the Town of Webster, the Town of Webster Police Department, A. Kirkpatrick (collectively the "Webster Defendants") and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 26, filed by the Town of Greece and the Greece Police Department (the "Greece Defendants"). The Webster Defendants' motion to dismiss and the Greece Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings are both GRANTED. Additionally, the Butterworths are ORDERED to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as to Paige.
The Butterworths initiated this action on March 18, 2020, and the Greece Defendants answered on June 30, 2020. ECF Nos. 1, 3. The Butterworths filed the operative amended complaint on July 19, 2020, which the Greece Defendants answered on July 22, 2020. ECF Nos. 12, 13. On August 3, 2020, the Webster Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, which seeks partial dismissal of the Butterworths' claims. ECF No. 15. On November 9, 2020, the Greece Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which seeks dismissal of all claims against the Greece Defendants. ECF No. 26. Paige was named as a defendant in both the original complaint and the amended complaint, ECF Nos. 1, 12, but he has not yet been served.
Robert Butterworth lives with Michelle and Ryan Butterworth in the Town of Greece and works for the Xerox Corporation at their facility located in the Town of Webster. ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 1-3, 14. Paige (or "Page") is a Corporate Security Investigator/Officer for Xerox. Id. ¶¶ 9, 15. Because Paige believed that Robert Butterworth was stealing copier toner cartridges from Xerox, Paige began an investigation into him and contacted the Webster Police Department. ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 16-17.
Kirkpatrick2 is an investigator for the Webster Police Department; he was assigned to the investigation of Robert Butterworth. Id. ¶¶ 8, 18. Based upon his investigation and the investigation conducted by Paige, Kirkpatrick drafted an application for a search warrant, which was submitted to, and signed by, Judge John DeMarco of the Monroe County Court. Id. ¶¶ 19-21; ECF No. 12-1. The search warrant was issued on March 15, 2018 and provided that it was to be executed within ten days. ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 21, 22; ECF No. 12-1.
On May 23, 2018, almost two months after expiration of the search warrant, members of the Webster and Greece Police Departments, including Kirkpatrick, executed the search warrant at the Butterworths' residence. ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 22-24. At the start of the search, unidentified police officers handcuffed and confined Michelle Butterworth in a police car for five hours and removed Ryan Butterworth from the house at gunpoint and held him at the Greece Police Department for five hours. Id. ¶¶ 25, 27.
The police confiscated a number of toner cartridges and bearings, which were allegedly stolen from Xerox by Robert Butterworth. ECF No. 12 ¶ 29. Robert Butterworth was arrested by unidentified officers of the Webster Police Department based on his alleged theft and charged "with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree . . . in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 155.35, subd. 1." Id. ¶ 30. Robert Butterworth was detained following the arrest for approximately six hours. Id. ¶ 31.
Upon presentation of the charge to the grand jury, Robert Butterworth testified that the toner cartridges and bearings were discarded by Xerox, that he had signed receipts for the items, and that Xerox policy allowed him to take the items. Id. ¶¶ 32-35. Based upon this testimony, the grand jury issued a "no-bill" and the criminal charges against Robert Butterworth were terminated. Id. ¶¶ 36-37.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) provides that a party may move to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must "draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff['s] favor." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual material, accepted as true, to "statea claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The application of this standard is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679.
"[O]n a 12(c) motion, the court considers the complaint, the answer, any written documents attached to them, and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case." Sarikaputar v. Veratip Corp., 371 F. Supp. 3d 101, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). "The standard for addressing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Cleveland v. Caplaw, 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Butterworths assert claims for (1) unreasonable search and seizure of the Butterworths' residence against the Webster and Greece Defendants, (2) unreasonable search and seizure of Michelle and Ryan Butterworth in violation of the Fourth Amendment against the Webster and Greece Defendants, (3) malicious prosecution of Robert Butterworth in violation of the Fourth Amendment by Kirkpatrick, (4) malicious prosecution of Robert Butterworth in violation of New York state law by Paige, and (5) a separate cause of action "for violations of" the Butterworths' "civil rights" pursuant to Section 1983 against all Defendants. ECF No. 12.
The Town of Webster Police Department and the Greece Police Department (collectively, the "Defendant Police Departments") both argue that, as administrative arms of municipal corporations, they may not be sued. ECF No. 15-1 at 3-4; ECF No. 26 at 5-6. The Town of Webster and the Town of Greece (collectively, the "Defendant Municipalities") both argue thatthe Butterworths have not adequately stated a claim for municipal liability. ECF No. 15-1 at 11-16; ECF No. 26 at 6-9. Kirkpatrick argues that the second and third causes of action against him should be dismissed. ECF No. 15-1 at 5-11.
The Butterworths concede that they cannot sue the Defendant Police Departments. ECF No. 21 at 2; ECF No. 30. "A police department is a municipal arm of the municipal corporation." Jackson v. Cnty. of Erie, No. 17-CV-396, 2020 WL 5642277, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020). "Because a police department does not exist separate and apart from the municipality, it is not considered its own legal entity, and cannot sue or be sued." Id. (collecting cases). Accordingly, the claims against the Defendant Police Departments must be dismissed.
A municipality may not be "held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs a tortfeasor." Bowen v. Cnty. of Westchester, 706 F. Supp. 2d 475, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Instead, a plaintiff must show that "action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort." Id. at 483 (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). In the context of evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, a plaintiff "must allege facts tending to support, at least circumstantially, an inference that . . . a municipal policy or custom exists." Triano v. Town of Harrison, NY, 895 F. Supp. 2d 526, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (collecting cases).
The Butterworths concede that they have not alleged a policy or custom of the Defendant Municipalities. ECF No. 21 at 2; ECF No. 30. At least with respect to the Town of Webster, however, the Butterworths request that the Court dismiss their claims without prejudice so that they may have an opportunity to reallege those claims if discovery reveals such a policy or custom. ECF No. 21 at 2. But see ECF No. 30 (). The Town of Webster argues that any dismissal should be with prejudice. ECF No. 22 at 5. The Court agrees.
Although leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires, see Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 212 (2d Cir. 2011), the Butterworths do not request leave to amend at this time. They instead are seeking the opportunity to amend in the future following discovery. ECF No. 21 at 2. The Supreme Court has made clear that "the doors of discovery [are not unlocked] for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. "[A]llowing the plaintiff to conduct discovery in order to piece together a claim would undermine the purpose of . . . Rule . . . 12(b)(6), which is to streamline litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding where the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the law." Naples v. Stefanelli, 972 F. Supp. 2d 373, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Because the Butterworths have not actually requested leave to amend and have not stated a Mo...
To continue reading
Request your trial