Cano v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 13–cv–3341 (WFK)(VVP).,13–cv–3341 (WFK)(VVP).
• Citation: 119 F.Supp.3d 65
• Parties: Germain CANO, Eric Cephus, Kevin Darnell, Peter Eppel, Michael Glenn, Deborah Gonzalez, Travis Gordon, Jacqueline Guarino, Keith Jennings, Wesley Jones, Gregory Maugeri, Michael McGhee, Dmitriy Miloslavskiy, Yvonne Mind, Steven Modes, Kerry Scott, Phillip Singleton, Michael Spalango, Raymond Tucker, Nancy Viglione, Elli Vikki, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, First Deputy Commissioner Rafael Pineiro, Captain Kenneth Kobetitsch, Captain William Tobin, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

119 F.Supp.3d 65

Germain CANO, Eric Cephus, Kevin Darnell, Peter Eppel, Michael Glenn, Deborah Gonzalez, Travis Gordon, Jacqueline Guarino, Keith Jennings, Wesley Jones, Gregory Maugeri, Michael McGhee, Dmitriy Miloslavskiy, Yvonne Mind, Steven Modes, Kerry Scott, Phillip Singleton, Michael Spalango, Raymond Tucker, Nancy Viglione, Elli Vikki, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, First Deputy Commissioner Rafael Pineiro, Captain Kenneth Kobetitsch, Captain William Tobin, Defendants.

No. 13–cv–3341 (WFK)(VVP).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Aug. 13, 2015.

Andrew S. Rendeiro, Flamhaft, Levy, Kamins Hirsch, Richard J. Cardinale, The Law Firm of Richard J. Cardinale, Michael O. Hueston, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Mark Galen Toews, Elizabeth Edmonds, Neil Anthony Giovanatti, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Germain Cano, Eric Cephus, Kevin Darnell, Michael Glenn, Deborah Gonzalez, Travis Gordon, Jacqueline Guarino, Keith Jennings, Wesley Jones, Gregory Maugeri, Michael McGhee, Dmitriy Miloslavskiy, Yvonne Ming, Steven Modes, Kerry Scott, Phillip Singleton, Michael Spalango, Raymond Tucker, Nancy Viglione, and Elli Vikki (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this action seeking compensatory damages for the allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions they endured while detained at Brooklyn Central Booking ("BCB"). Plaintiffs claim the City of New York, First Deputy Rafael Pineiro, Captain Kenneth Kobetitsch, and Captain William Tobin (collectively, "Defendants") were deliberately and punitively indifferent to a serious risk of harm Plaintiffs faced at BCB in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before this Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are either undisputed or described in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the non-moving party. See Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005).

BCB

BCB is a facility in New York City that temporarily houses individuals who have been arrested by the New York Police Department in Brooklyn, New York and are awaiting arraignment before a Criminal Court judge. Dkt. 70 (Defendants' Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) ("DSF") at ¶ 1. At all times relevant to the allegations in this action, BCB was located on the ground floor of the Brooklyn House of Detention, a correctional facility located at 272 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11201. Id. at ¶ 2.

The Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs allege that they were arrested on one or more occasions in Brooklyn between July 10, 2011 and July 23, 2013. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs were in custody at BCB during the following months: (1) July 2011, (2) October 2011, (3) November 2011, (4) January 2012, (5) May 2012, (6) July 2012, (7) September 2012, (8) October 2012, (9) December 2012, (10) January 2013, (11) February 2013, (12) March 2013, (13) April 2013, (14) May 2013, (15) June 2013, and (16) July 2013. Id. Following their arrests, each Plaintiff spent an average of ten to twenty-four hours in custody at BCB. Id. at ¶ 4. No Plaintiff spent longer than a consecutive day at BCB. Id. at ¶ 4.

Detention Conditions

Plaintiffs allege that while they were detained at BCB, they were housed in cells that exposed and subjected them to a number of allegedly unconstitutional conditions such as:

• Overcrowding: Plaintiffs were held in jail cells with "numerous detainees in close proximity to one another. The overcrowding was exacerbated by the loud noise, unsanitary conditions, lack of sleeping space[,] and extreme temperatures[.]" Dkt. 10 ("Complaint") at ¶ 22.

• Deprivation of Sleep: Plaintiffs were held overnight and prevented from sleeping because they were not provided with any sleeping equipment—including beds, cots, pillows, blankets, or bedding. Further, the lights were kept on at all times. Id. at ¶ 23.

• Unusable Toilets: The cells, which were already overcrowded, only contained one toilet per cell. That toilet was covered with feces, urine and/or vomit, lacked a toilet seat, was often clogged or backed-up, and lacked privacy partitions. Plaintiffs were typically provided with no toilet paper or, if a roll of toilet paper was provided, it was quickly used up. Id. at ¶ 24.

• Extreme Temperatures and Poor Ventilation: "Plaintiffs were subjected to extremely cold or hot temperatures, or both, and shivered and/or sweated profusely while in the unventilated cells in the facility." Id. at ¶ 25.

• Sanitation and Garbage: "Plaintiffs were held in cells in which there was garbage strewn over the floor as well as urine, feces[,] and/or vomit splattered in sections of the floor." Id. at ¶ 26.

• Infestation: The cells were infested with rodents and/or insects. Id. at ¶ 27.

• Crime: "Plaintiffs were held in cells which were largely unsupervised and where the guards look[ed] the other way at fights, thefts[,] and bullying. Violent criminals charged with such crimes as murder, attempted murder, armed robbery[,] and rape [were] held in the same cells as alleged minor offenders and these criminals often dominate[d] the other detainees and control[led] what occur[ed] in the cells." Id. at ¶ 28.

• Lack of Toiletries and Other Hygienic Items: Plaintiffs were deprived of soap, tissues, clean water, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and toilet paper. Id. at ¶ 29.

• Inadequate Water and Meals: "Plaintiffs were not provided fresh, clean drinking water or adequate food." Id. at 30. Plaintiffs were fed "one stale peanut butter and jelly or bologna sandwich, a carton of warm milk or juice and/or a small box of cereal, but were not given plastic utensils, paper plates or bowls, or napkins." Id.

Based on the foregoing conditions, Plaintiffs claim they were exposed to a substantial risk of illness and physical harm. Id. at ¶ 31.

Current Action

On September 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants alleging that their constitutional rights were violated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Complaint. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants First Deputy Commissioner Rafael Pineiro, Captain Kenneth Kobetitsh, and Captain William Tobin (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") were acting under the color of state law and in their capacities as NYPD officials during the events in question. Id. at ¶¶ 8–10. Plaintiffs have sued the Individual Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Id. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants, along with other New York City policymakers and supervisory personnel, have been aware of the unconstitutional conditions at the BCB since at least June 12, 2010. Id. at ¶ 32.

Before this Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 69 ("Memo in Support"). Defendants argue summary judgment is appropriate because: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim, (2) the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, (3) Defendant Rafael Pineiro had no personal involvement in the alleged violations, and (4) Plaintiffs cannot establish a § 1983 claim against the City of New York because Plaintiffs have not been deprived of any federal rights and because there is no evidence in the record to support a Monell claim. Id. at 3–25. Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motion on all grounds. Dkt. 73 ("Memo in Opp."). After setting forth the relevant legal standards governing motions for summary judgment, the Court will address each issue raised by the parties.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

On a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he role of the court is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, this Court will construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant." Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Once the movant has demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact exists, then "the nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ’ " Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) ) (emphasis in original). The non-moving party must present "concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

II. Analysis

A. Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims Do Not Rise to Deliberate Indifference

Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiffs have failed to state a cognizable claim to support their allegations that they were subjected to unconstitutional conditions while detained at the BCB. Memo in Support at 3–19.

Pretrial detainees' constitutional rights are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause rather than the Cruel and Unusual Punishment...