Camacho v. City of Buffalo

• Decision Date: 14 October 2021
• Docket Number: 18-CV-1318-JLS(F)
• Parties: JULIO CRUZ CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, and COUNTY OF ERIE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

JULIO CRUZ CAMACHO, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BUFFALO, and COUNTY OF ERIE, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-1318-JLS(F)

United States District Court, W.D. New York

October 14, 2021

NELSON S. TORRE, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff

CITY OF BUFFALO LAW DEPARTMENT Attorney for Defendant City of Buffalo MAEVE EILEEN HUGGINS

ERIE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Attorney for Defendant County of Erie JEREMY C. TOTH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LESLIE G. FOSCHIO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JURISDICTION

On March 5, 2021, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial matters including preparation of a report and recommendation on dispositive motions (Dkt. 34). Presently before the court are four motions, including a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant County of Erie (“the County”) on February 24, 2021 (Dkt. 29), a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment filed by

1

Defendant City of Buffalo (“the City”) on February 25, 2021 (Dkt. 30), and two crossmotions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Julio Cruz Camacho (“Plaintiff”) on June 2, 2021 (Dkts. 40, 41).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action in New York Supreme Court, Erie County, on November 2, 2018 (Dkt. 1-1) (“Complaint”), alleging against the City and the County (together, “Defendants”) four claims for relief related to his arrest on November 14, 2017 and subsequent detention at the Erie County Holding Center (“the Holding Center”) until November 17, 2017, including claims under New York common law for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment, Complaint ¶¶ 16-21 (“First Claim”), and assault and battery, id. ¶¶ 22-23 (“Second Claim”) (together, “the state law claims”), a civil rights claim for false arrest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, id. ¶¶ 24-28 (“Third Claim”), and a civil rights claim for negligent hiring, training and supervision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, id. ¶¶ 29-31 (“Fourth Claim”) (together, “the federal claims”). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an award of attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 12. On November 19, 2018, Defendants filed their respective answers (Dkts. 1-2 (City) and 1-3 (County)). On November 20, 2018, the County removed the action to this court (Dkt. 1).^[1] Discovery concluded on January 25, 2021 (Dkt. 27).

2

On February 24, 2021, the County filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 29) (“County's Motion”), attaching the Supporting Declaration of Assistant County Attorney Jeremy C. Toth (Dkt. 29-1) (“Toth Declaration”), exhibits A through H (Dkt. 29-2 through 29-8 and 29-12) (“County Exh(s). ”), a Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Dkt. 29-9) (“County Statement of Facts”), and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 29-10) (“County's Memorandum”). On February 25, 2021, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (“Rule 12(c)”) and for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (Dkt. 30) (“City's Motion”), attaching a Memorandum of Law In Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30-1) (“City's Memorandum”), a Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Dkt. 30-2) (“City Statement of Facts”), the Supporting Declaration of Assistant Corporation Counsel Maeve E. Huggins (Dkt. 30-3) (“Huggins Declaration”), and exhibits A through J (Dkts. 30-4 through 30-13) (“City Exh(s). ”).

In opposition to the County's Motion and the City's Motion (together, “Defendants' Motions”), Plaintiff filed on June 2, 2021, cross-motions for summary judgment seeking summary judgment only on the state law claims. (Dkt. 40) (“Plaintiff's Motion - City”), and Dkt. 41 (“Plaintiff's Motion - County”). Plaintiff's Motion - City, is supported by the Declaration of Nelson S. Torre (Dkt. 40-1) (“Torre Declaration - City ”), attaching exhibits 1 through 26 (Dkts. 40-2 through 40-27) (“Plaintiff Exh(s).- City ”), a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Dkt. 40-28)

3

(“Plaintiff's Undisputed Facts - City”); a Statement of Disputed Material Facts (Dkt. 4029) (“Plaintiff's Disputed Facts - City”), and a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability (Dkt. 40-30) (“Plaintiff's Memorandum”). Plaintiff's Motion - County, is supported by the Declaration of Nelson S. Torre (Dkt. 41-1) (“Torre Declaration-County”), exhibits 1 through 26 (Dkts. 41-2 through 41-27) (“Plaintiff Exh(s).-County ”), a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Dkt. 41-28) (“Plaintiff's Undisputed Facts-County”); a Statement of Disputed Material Facts (Dkt. 41-29) (“Plaintiff's Disputed Facts-County”), and Plaintiff's Affidavit dated April 30, 2021 (Dkt. 41-30) (“Plaintiff Affidavit”). Plaintiff also filed on June 2, 2021, a duplicate copy of Plaintiff's Memorandum. Dkt, 42 (“Plaintiff's Memorandum”).^[2]

On June 23, 2021, the County filed the Attorney Reply Declaration in Support of the County's Motion for Summary Judgment by Jeremy C. Toth (Dkt. 45) (“Toth Reply Declaration”). Also on June 23, 2021, the City filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion And In Further Support of the City's Motion (Dkt. 46) (“City's Reply”), attaching a Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts (Dkt. 46-1) (“City's Responding Statement of Facts”). On July 9, 2021, the County filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 47-4) (“County's Reply”), attaching the Attorney Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Jeremy C. Toth (Dkt. 47) (“Toth Opposition Declaration”),

4

exhibits A through B (Dkts. 47-1 and 47-2) (“County Opposition Exh(s). ”), and the County's Objections to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 47-3) (“County Responding Statement of Facts”). On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in Reply to the County's Response and in Further Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 49) (“Plaintiff's Reply”). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary.

Based on the following, the County's Motion should be GRANTED, the City's Motion should be GRANTED as to summary judgment and should be DISMISSED as moot as to judgment on the pleadings; the Plaintiff's Motion-City should be DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion-County should be DENIED.

FACTS^[3]

At noon on November 14, 2017, Plaintiff was driving home from a job interview in Blasdell, New York to his residence in the City of Buffalo. City Exh. D at 23-25. At some point, he became disoriented and inadvertently drove onto the Peace Bridge, which connects the United States to Canada. Id. at 25; City Statement of Facts ¶ 1. Without making a U-turn to return to the United States, Plaintiff reached the Canadian border and spoke with a Canadian customs agent. City Exh. D at 32. After Plaintiff provided his driver's license, the agent informed him that he needed to wait before he could turn around. Id. at 32, 37. A few minutes later, other officers with Canada's customs agency arrived and told Plaintiff they were detaining him for an investigation. Id. at 28-29, 34-35. During the ensuing interview, Plaintiff learned that the agency was

5

“looking for a person with [his] name” who had allegedly committed multiple murders murder in Kentucky (“the murder suspect”). Id. at 36-37. Plaintiff testified that he was detained for several hours while Canadian authorities investigated the possibility that Plaintiff was the murder suspect. Id. at 37. In Plaintiff's version of events, Canadian authorities released him once they were able to obtain a photograph of the suspect from Kentucky police and confirm that Plaintiff was “not the wanted person.” Plaintiff Affidavit ¶¶ 5, 6. Plaintiff claims that Canadian authorities provided him with a letter (“the letter”) stating that “according to the investigation made by Canadian Immigration, they determined that [the wanted] person wasn't me.” City Exh. D at 66-67.

Upon returning to the United States border, Plaintiff provided the letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents (“CBP officer(s)”). Id. at 40. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was detained at the U.S. border. Id. CBP officers informed him that a person by the name of Antonio Sanchez (“Sanchez”)^[4] had an active warrant for a murder charge from Kentucky.^[5] Id. at 40, 47, 48. The murder suspect had the same birthday as Plaintiff and used Plaintiff's name as one of his aliases. See Plaintiff Exh.-City 16 at 16; Plaintiff Exh.-City 2 at 1. Plaintiff protested that he was not Sanchez, and Plaintiff provided numerous documents to CBP officers to verify his identity, including his birth certificate, Social Security card, “IDs from Puerto Rico, ” and his Florida driver's license. Id. at 46, 50. In his affidavit, Plaintiff also claims to have provided CBP officers with a 2009 police report from Puerto Rico in which he was erroneously detained, and

6

subsequently released, based on the same warrant for Sanchez. Plaintiff Affidavit 43 ¶¶ 6-7. In addition, Plaintiff states that he observed that the CBP officers had the photograph of the murder suspect-the same photograph that had led Canadian authorities to conclude that Plaintiff was not murder suspect. Id. ¶ 6.

In the meantime, the Buffalo Police Department (“BPD”) received a call from a CBP official. See County Exh. A. The agent told the BPD dispatcher that he “had a gentleman here [the Peace Bridge]” with a “full extradition warrant for homicide out of Kentucky.” Id. The agent stated that “everything's verified, ” that he “spoke to them, ” [the Kentucky authorities] and that “they will extradite.” Id. The CBP official asked whether the Buffalo Police “would be willing to send someone over, ” and the dispatcher...