Chubbs v. City of New York
Decision Date | 15 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 70-C-996,71-C-1.,70-C-996 |
Citation | 324 F. Supp. 1183 |
Parties | Hillard CHUBBS, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Policeman Cameron Reese, #23495, of 88th Precinct, Brooklyn, New York, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Hillard Chubbs, pro se.
Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, for defendants; Saul Bernstein, New York City, of counsel.
This is a civil rights case (70-C-996) against an arresting officer and the City of New York seeking damages of $1,500,000 for false arrest and illegal detention. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was arrested one evening, as he claims without probable cause; identified by the complaining witness almost immediately; and held, in his submission illegally, until the next morning when he was arraigned. The arrest led to plaintiff's conviction after trial by jury of first degree sodomy and burglary and second degree assault. He received a sentence of fifteen to twenty years. These convictions have been affirmed. App.Div., 316 N.Y.S. 2d 994 (1970). Leave to appeal was denied on December 10, 1970.
Even though plaintiff's civil rights action states a valid claim for relief, the probability of his obtaining a significant remedy is miniscule and the burdens on the court, defendants, the bar and the penal system of allowing the litigation to proceed are great. Under the circumstances described below we refuse to permit this hopeless case to proceed.
One petition for a writ of habeas corpus arising from the conviction has already been dismissed by this Court. United States ex rel. Chubbs v. Deegan, 70-C-1064. A second petition (71-C-1) has been filed based on the theory that the policeman's testimony corroborating complainant's identification violated defendant's constitutional rights; this petition must also be dismissed.
Petitioner, a prisoner in the State Prison at Auburn, New York, mailed a handwritten complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for assignment of counsel to this Court in August of 1970. He alleges that at 6:25 P.M. on March 8, 1965 on a street corner in Brooklyn he was arrested and "asked" by a police officer to accompany him to a restaurant where he was "identified by the complainant witness," who worked there, "as the man who Assaulted and Raped her on the early hours of March 8, 1965 at her house." The locations referred to in the complaint are, the Court judicially notices, a short distance from each other in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area. See, United States v. City of New York, 132 F.Supp. 779, 782 (E.D.N.Y.1955). "After the identification was made," he "was placed formally under Arrest" and then taken to the precinct house where he was "charged." He was "Arraigned in the Criminal Court" on March 9, 1965 at approximately 10:25 A.M.. On July 22, 1965 he was found guilty by a jury.
Although the complaint is ambiguous, the claim appears to be that plaintiff was "arrested at approximately 6:25 P.M." on March 8 without a warrant and without probable cause—apparently before the identification in the restaurant by the victim—"since, although, the police did have a description of the person who Allegedly Committed the Crime, there was no Reason to believe the plaintiff was him, until identified by the Complainant." He seeks damages on the ground of an illegal arrest, "Illegal imprisonment for 16 hours," "Illegal delay in Arraignment," and indictment for a more serious crime than was charged in the affidavit.
The Court ordered the complaint filed and docketed and served upon defendants without prepayment of fees. It denied the motion for assignment of counsel with permission to renew upon a showing of some merit.
In November defendants answered by a general denial and general allegations of lack of jurisdiction. All parties requested a jury trial. Relying solely on the pleadings and legal argument, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Following denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff moved for (1) a pre-trial conference and the fixing of a trial date; (2) assignment of counsel; (3) a writ of habeas corpus directing production of plaintiff in court for the purpose of conducting the trial; (4) issuance of subpoenas for witnesses for the trial; and (5) discovery of specified documents. The Court reserved decision on this motion.
Prior experience with cases of this kind suggested that the plaintiff would have difficulty pressing this litigation without an attorney and that the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, appearing for defendants, would give the Court little assistance. Accordingly, in September it wrote to a member of the bar in whom it had confidence requesting an investigation of the matter before the Court took further action. He was to make a factual and legal inquiry to determine whether there was sufficient merit in the case to warrant appointment of an attorney—i. e., "whether counsel might possibly be of assistance." To avoid some of the burdens of the attorney-client relationship while affording the protection of the attorney-client privilege the Court instructed this attorney as follows:
The report of the attorney was not encouraging to plaintiff but it did conclude, as does the Court, that a claim has been stated within the four corners of the complaint. The pertinent parts of the report are set out below:
By letter dated December 1, 1970 the Court wrote to plaintiff explaining that an investigation had been conducted at the Court's request, setting out the full report—a portion of which has been quoted above—and notifying him that the Court was "prepared to dismiss * * * unless you can present * * * facts indicating that the action should proceed." Plaintiff's response was a legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dreyer v. Jalet
... ... After working in New York State in various capacities which exposed her to social problems involving the poor, she joined the ... Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971); Chubbs v. City of New York, 324 F.Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y.1971); Note, The Indigent's Right to Counsel in ... ...
-
Holodnak v. AVCO CORP., AVCO-LYCOMING D., STRATFORD, CONN.
... ... § 10 is available, Office of Supply, Republic of Korea v. New York" Navigation Co., 469 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1972). One such ground is the arbitrator's partiality ... \xC2" ... See, e. g., Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 429 F.2d 290, 294 (5th Cir. 1970); Chubbs v. City of New York, 324 F.Supp. 1183, 1191 (E.D.N.Y.1971); Stamps v. Detroit Edison Corp., 365 ... ...
-
Wood v. Safeway, Inc.
... ... to Safeway, and it is undisputed that Ronquillo-Nino was employed as a janitor at the Carson City Safeway store. He was not acting on behalf of Action Cleaning when he assaulted Doe, or out of any ... Petricciani, 70 Nev. 427, 436, 272 P.2d 492, 496 (1954) ... 5. See, e.g., Chubbs v. City of New York, 324 F.Supp. 1183, 1189 (E.D.N.Y.1971) ("Since courts are composed of mere ... ...
-
Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co.
... ... Sanford Jay Rosen, New York City, for American Civil Liberties Union, plaintiffs ... Raymond Willis, ... Cf. 42 U.S.C. 1983; Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 429 F.2d 290 (C.A. 5, 1970); Chubbs" v. City of New York, 324 F.Supp. 1183 (D.C.S.D. N.Y., 1971) ... 365 F. Supp. 120 \xC2" ... ...