Cain v. Cnty. of Niagara
| Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-1710S |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
| Parties | SHAUN L. CAIN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NIAGARA, NEW YORK, JOHN DOE 1 AND 2, CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK, JOHN DOE 3 AND 4, Defendants. |
SHAUN L. CAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF NIAGARA, NEW YORK, JOHN DOE 1 AND 2, CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK, JOHN DOE 3 AND 4, Defendants.
No. 20-CV-1710S
United States District Court, W.D. New York
March 2, 2022
DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. Introduction
This is a civil rights action following the detention, arrest, and prosecution of Plaintiff Shaun Cain.
Before this Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant County of Niagara and Niagara County Deputy John Doe 1 and 2[1] (collectively “County Defendants”) (Docket No. 5).
For the reasons stated herein, this Motion to Dismiss (id.) is denied in part, upholding the Second Cause of Action alleging false arrest against the County Defendants, and granted in part, dismissing the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action against the County Defendants.
II. Background
Defendants are the County Defendants Niagara County, deputy John Doe 1 and 2, the City of Niagara Falls (hereinafter “the City”), and John Doe Niagara Falls Police officers 3 and 4.
A. Facts
On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff's former girlfriend, Lakara Brewer, worked at the 7-Eleven in Wheatfield, New York. Plaintiff and his mother, Louise Blissett, went to that 7-Eleven to retrieve Plaintiff's allegedly stolen property from Brewer. (Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 33-34.) Plaintiff and Blissett saw the property in Brewer's car and Blissett called 911 reporting the stolen property (id. ¶¶ 36, 37).
Niagara County deputies John Doe 1 and 2 arrived about a half hour after Blissett's call and first spoke with Plaintiff and then with Brewer (id. ¶¶ 39-44). Plaintiff alleges that John Doe 1 pressured Brewer to charge Plaintiff, abusing his office in so doing (id. ¶¶ 45-47, 50, 52-53, 54). Brewer eventually signed a statement against Plaintiff drafted by John Doe 1 that Plaintiff claims she signed upon John Doe 1's compulsion (id. ¶¶ 53-54, 57).
At first Plaintiff alleges John Does 1 and 2 arrested him but he later alleges John Doe 2 told Plaintiff that he was not under arrest (id. ¶¶ 57, 61-62). John Doe 2 ordered Plaintiff out of his vehicle. John Does 1 and 2 then handcuffed and detained Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 62-63.) Plaintiff deemed himself under arrest by these deputies (id. ¶ 64).
After holding Plaintiff in County custody for 45 minutes, John Doe deputies 1 and 2 removed the handcuffs and transferred Plaintiff to City of Niagara Falls police officers, Defendant John Does 3 and 4 (id. ¶ 67). The City police officers then arrested Plaintiff (id. ¶ 68). Plaintiff was charged with criminal obstruction of breathing, N.Y. Penal L. § 121.11
(a class A misdemeanor), and harassment in the second degree, N.Y. Penal L. § 240.26(1) (a violation) (id. ¶ 76). As a result of these actions, “Plaintiff was forcefully detained, confined and imprisoned, handcuffed, finger printed, mug shot and his clothing removed, all without just or probable cause” (id. ¶ 74). He alleges that Defendants knew that they were arresting him based on a falsehood (id. ¶ 77).
Plaintiff then was arraigned and released on his own recognizance (id. ¶¶ 78-83). After numerous court appearances, the state court dismissed all charges against Plaintiff on July 2, 2019 (id. ¶ 84). He alleges malicious prosecution without any just cause or reason while Defendants were aware of his innocence (id. ¶ 85).
B. Complaint and Causes of Action
On June 21, 2019, Plaintiff served Notices of Claim upon the municipal Defendants (id. ¶¶ 26-28, 30-31). Plaintiff noted the deadline for commencing this action was subject to “numerous stays promulgated by Governor Cuomo” (id. ¶ 32). Plaintiff then filed and served his Complaint (id.). He invokes this Court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1343 (federal civil rights), and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (id. ¶¶ 3-4).
The First Cause of Action alleges violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants (Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 95-96). Plaintiff complains that, by detaining and imprisoning him without probable cause or justification, “Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his due process rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States” (id. ¶ 95). He alleges that the Defendant officers and deputies acted under color of state law and abused their authority (id. ¶ 96). Defendants violated
Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (id. ¶¶ 95, 96, 87).
The Second Cause of Action alleges common law false arrest and false imprisonment against all Defendants because the John Doe deputies 1 and 2 (without justification and probable cause) provided false information to John Doe officers 3 and 4 who then arrested Plaintiff (id. ¶¶ 98-100, 99).
The Third Cause of Action also alleges common law malicious prosecution by all Defendants for Plaintiff's arrest and prosecution until charges were dismissed (id. ¶¶ 102-04, 82-85).
The Fourth Cause of Action alleges Defendants violated Plaintiff's due process rights by arresting him in front of his mother, keeping him in custody for 45 minutes, deprived of food and water, taking him to the hospital in his boxers, all in deprivation of his due process rights (id. ¶¶ 106-07). Plaintiff does not allege whether he is invoking federal or state constitutional due process, unlike his First Cause of Action where he cited amendments to the United States Constitution.
Finally, the Fifth Cause of Action alleges municipal liability against the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara County for arresting and prosecuting Plaintiff despite knowing the charges against him were false (id. ¶¶ 109-19). He claims the City and County had policies, practices, and customs to act upon false reports (id. ¶¶ 112-14). Plaintiff again did not allege if this arises under federal or state constitutional law, cf. N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6, but the limits on municipal liability arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for federal rights, see Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 665-83, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)
Whether the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action are under federal or state law is important for establishing the applicable statute of limitations.
Plaintiff seeks to recover up to $30, 000.00 for damages, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements (id. at WHEREFORE Cl., at page 18 of 20). He also seeks punitive damages (id. ¶ 2).
C. Proceedings and Motion to Dismiss
The County Defendants moved to dismiss (Docket No. 5[2]). First, they argue that the state law causes of action (the Second through Fifth Causes of Action) are untimely, despite the COVID-19 Executive Orders suspending statutes of limitation (id., Defs. Memo. at 7-8). They do not contest the timeliness of the federal First Cause of Action. Next, they declare Plaintiff's due process, false arrest and false imprisonment claims were meritless as is his malicious prosecution claim alleged in the Third Cause of Action (id. at 1, 8-16, 16-17). Third, the County Defendants deny vicarious municipal liability for the acts of the deputies (id. at 1, 17-19; see Joerg Decl. ¶¶ 3-4).
Responses to this Motion were due by March 9, 2021, and reply by March 16, 2021 (Docket No. 6). Meanwhile, Defendant City answered (Docket No. 13), asserting a crossclaim against the County Defendants for contribution in the event Plaintiff prevailed against the City (id. ¶ 35). The County Defendants' attorney filed a Declaration (Docket No. 14)
extending their Motion to Dismiss to include the City's crossclaim (id., Def. Atty. Decl. ¶¶ 5-8). The City did not respond to this Motion.
III. Discussion
A. Applicable Standards
1. Motion to Dismiss
The County Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Docket No. 5). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court cannot dismiss a Complaint unless it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). As the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), a Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” Id. at 570 (rejecting longstanding precedent of Conley, supra, 355 U.S. at 45-46).
To survive a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in the Complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” Twombly, supra, 550 U.S. At 555. As reaffirmed by the Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009),
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' [Twombly, supra, 550 U.S.] at 570 . . . . 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. Id., at 556 . . . . The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”' Id., at 557 . . . (brackets omitted).”
Iqbal, supra, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is addressed to the face of the pleading. The pleading is deemed to include any document attached to it as an exhibit, Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c), or any document incorporated in it by reference, Goldman...
To continue reading
Request your trial