Corley v. Vance
| Decision Date | 27 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 15 Civ. 9621 (KPF),15 Civ. 1800 (KPF) |
| Citation | 365 F.Supp.3d 407 |
| Parties | Royce CORLEY, Plaintiff, v. Cyrus R. VANCE, Jr., David Stuart, John Temples, Ada Greg Weiss, Elizabeth Pederson, Dany Personnel, Brian Conroy, Michael Daly, Mark Woods, Detective Jessica Sterling, Giancarlo Cavallo, Greg Smith, NYPD Personnel, OSE Personnel, Michael T. Haggerty, Walter Panchyn, Area Officer John Doe #3, Backpage.com, LLC, Sprint Nextel Corp., T-Mobile USA Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Research in Motion Ltd., Municipal Credit Union, Capital One N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., City of New York, New York County District Attorney, and Supervisor C.O. John Doe #1-2, Defendants. Royce Corley, Plaintiff, v. Honorable Bonnie G. Wittner, Michael J. Barry, Ports & Files, Inc., Glenn F. Hardy, Esq., Glenn F. Hardy, P.C., Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., John Temple, David Stuart, Greg Weiss, John Doe, and the City of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Royce Corley, Petersburg, VA, pro se.
Christina Frances Ante, Amatullah Khaliha Booth, Colin Mccann Ceriello, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Christine Tramontano, Diep Nguyen, Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., Adam K. Grant, Frank Thomas Spano, Polsinelli PC, Marc Andrew Rapaport, Rapaport Law Firm, PLLC, Meredith Reade Miller, Miller Law, PLLC, Jeffrey D. Vanacore, Perkins Coie LLP, Brian Michael Willen, Eli Bard Richlin, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Robert Anthony Fitch, Rawle & Henderson LLP, Philip A. Goldstein, McGuireWoods LLP, Christopher Barry Turcotte, The Law Office of Christopher B. Turcotte, P.C., New York, NY, Jeffrey I. Carton, Myles Keough Bartley, Denlea & Carton LLP, Richard Brian Polner, Harrington Ocko & Monk, LLP, White Plains, NY, Seth A. Schaeffer, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, for Defendants.
In 2014, Plaintiff Royce Corley was convicted in this District on federal charges involving trafficking of minors and possession of child pornography. Now, proceeding pro se , Plaintiff brings two civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims arising out his investigation, arrest, and prosecution on earlier state charges that were ultimately subsumed by his federal case. In addition to his federal claims, Plaintiff asserts state-law claims over which he asks this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Defendants Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., David Stuart, John Temples, Greg Weiss, Elizabeth Pederson (collectively, the "DA Defendants"); Brian Conroy, Michael Daly, Mark Woods, Jessica Sterling, Giancarlo Cavallo, Greg Smith, Shari C. Hyman (collectively, the "NYPD Defendants," and together with the DA Defendants, the "Government Defendants"); Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Edison"), Michael T. Haggerty and Walter Panchyn (collectively, the "Con Edison Defendants"); T-Mobile USA Inc. ("T-Mobile"), Facebook Inc. ("Facebook"), Google Inc. ("Google"), Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC"), Municipal Credit Union ("MCU"), Capital One N.A. ("Capital One"), JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. ("Chase") (collectively, the "Corporate Defendants"); Michael J. Barry and Ports & Files, Inc. (collectively, the "Barry Defendants"); Glenn F. Hardy, Esq. and Glenn F. Hardy, P.C. (collectively, the "Hardy Defendants"); the Honorable Bonnie G. Wittner; and the City of New York (altogether, the "Moving Defendants") now move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Separately, Justice Wittner moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) ; Facebook moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) ; and the DA Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5). For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.1
Plaintiff filed his complaint in the first of his two civil rights cases, Corley v. Vance , No. 15 Civ. 1800, on January 13, 2015. (1800 Dkt. # 1).2 The 1800 Complaint alleged violations of the Constitution and of several federal statutes, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 - 2523, the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 - 2713, the Right to Financial Privacy Act ("RFPA"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 - 3423, and the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721 - 25, as well as various state-law claims. The named defendants in that case include the DA Defendants, the NYPD Defendants, the Corporate Defendants, the Con Edison Defendants, and the City of New York. (Id. ).
The 1800 Complaint alleges that in 2007, Plaintiff "was informally doing business under the nom de guerre ‘Ron Iron’ providing advertising and web development services to escort, therapeutic and adult-oriented businesses." (1800 Compl. ¶¶ 5, 22). Subsequently, in 2008, Plaintiff began working as a technician for Con Edison. (Id. at ¶ 23). In 2009, an individual who had been convicted of promoting prostitution allegedly "vindictively" forwarded to law enforcement false information implicating Plaintiff in illegal activity. (Id. at ¶ 25). Plaintiff alleges that, in consequence, law enforcement officers: (i) induced a minor to work as a confidential informant and prostitute to manufacture evidence against Plaintiff; (ii) tampered with advertisements appearing on Backpage.com by "altering ‘AdOId’ posted by other individuals, or created by the defendants"; and (iii) used fabricated evidence to obtain court orders, subpoenas, and warrants. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-29, 37-41). Accordingly, it is alleged that despite using a warrant, "defendants had no probable cause" to obtain access to Plaintiff's accounts; to search his apartment and office at Con Edison; or to seize his cell phones, electronic media, and credit cards. (Id. at ¶¶ 47-48).
Plaintiff asserts that he "has not been provided with any court orders, subpoenas, warrants or notices in relation to any of these disclosures." (1800 Compl. ¶ 26). Backpage.com is further alleged to have "aided and abetted" law enforcement "by granting them unlimited access to password-protected accounts without the proper legal authority," while other of the Corporate Defendants are alleged to have provided law enforcement with Plaintiff's records, emails, and instant messages. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 38, 60-62).
Initially, Plaintiff was charged by the Office of the District Attorney for New York County (the "DANY") in New York County Supreme Court. However, the state charges were dismissed on February 1, 2013. (1800 Compl. ¶ 46). Instead, Plaintiff was prosecuted federally by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "USAO"). (9621 Compl. ¶ 49). He was indicted in this District on January 22, 2013, and a superseding indictment was returned on October 10, 2013. See United States v. Corley , No. 13 Cr. 48 (RPP/AJN) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff was ultimately convicted of child exploitation and child pornography offenses in April 2014; his conviction was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on February 9, 2017, United States v. Corley , 679 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order); and his petition for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 2, 2017, Corley v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 205, 199 L.Ed.2d 135 (2017).
As noted, the 1800 Complaint focuses on the conduct of law enforcement authorities before and immediately following Plaintiff's 2012 arrest. Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for, inter alia , false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, unlawful search and seizure, malicious abuse of process, conspiracy to violate due process, fabrication of evidence, and violations of the rights to a speedy trial and to privacy, as well as state-law claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. (1800 Compl. ¶¶ 72-84, 95-99). Broadly speaking, Plaintiff alleges that private individuals and corporations (i) conspired with state actors to violate his constitutional rights and (ii) failed to train their employees properly with respect to the release of customer information. Plaintiff further asserts that the private defendants violated federal statutes that limit disclosure of electronic records and communications. (Id. at ¶¶ 60-63).
On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second complaint, this one against New York State Supreme Court Justice Bonnie G. Wittner, the judge who presided over Plaintiff's state prosecution; Michael J. Barry, Plaintiff's appointed counsel in that case; criminal investigator Glenn F. Hardy and his company, Ports & Files, Inc., also appointed to assist in Plaintiff's defense; several members of the DANY; and the City of New York. (9621 Dkt. # 2). Whereas the 1800 Complaint focused on the investigative work undertaken preliminary to Plaintiff's 2012 arrest, the 9621 Complaint focused on the conduct of those involved in Plaintiff's state prosecution from its inception until the case was turned over to federal prosecutors.
In the 9621 Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Justice Wittner and representatives of the DANY conspired (i) to establish a "quasi-grand jury" for the purpose of accessing, illegally, Plaintiff's communications and records (9621 Compl. ¶ 17); (ii) to "coerce or entice" an underage female to participate in an illegal sting operation against Plaintiff that would "manufacture" state-court jurisdiction over him (id. at ¶¶ 18, 24); (iii) to circumvent case assignment procedures so that Plaintiff's criminal case would be assigned to Justice Wittner (who, it is alleged, would then cover up the putative co-conspirators' prior misconduct, see id. at ¶ 27); and (iv) to solicit the USAO to prosecute Plaintiff (id. at ¶¶ 39-41, 46-49). Plaintiff further alleges that his attorney and criminal investigator publicized private information concerning Plaintiff and his case "for the purpose of financial gain and promoting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buari v. City of New York
...documents, including, for example, a plaintiff's arrest reports, indictments, and criminal disposition data. Corley v. Vance , 365 F. Supp. 3d 407, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (collecting cases); see Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Can.), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. , 369 F.3d 212, 217......
-
Stevens v. The Vill. of Red Hook
... ... plaintiff's arrest reports, indictments, and criminal ... disposition data. Corley v. Vance , 365 F.Supp.3d ... 407, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (collecting cases); see Blue ... Tree Hotels Inv. (Can.), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels ... ...
-
Flores v. City of New York
... ... permanent and well settled as to imply the constructive ... acquiescence of senior policymaking officials.” ... Corley v. Vance , 365 F.Supp.3d 407, 438 (S.D.N.Y ... 2019) (quoting Biswas v. City of New York , 973 ... F.Supp.2d 504, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)), ... ...
-
Holden v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
...that is "so permanent and well settled as to imply the constructive acquiescence of senior policymaking officials." Corley v. Vance, 365 F. Supp. 3d 407, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), aff'd sub nom., Corley v. Wittner, 811 F. App'x 62 (2d Cir. 2020).In this case, the plaintiffs have primarily sought......