Davis-Guider v. City of Troy

• Decision Date: 08 March 2019
• Docket Number: 1:17-CV-1290 (FJS/DJS)
• Parties: MICHAEL DAVIS-GUIDER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TROY; RONALD FOUNTAIN, Individually; DANIELLE COONRADT, Individually; CHARLES MCDONALD, Individually; RENSSELAER COUNTY; MICHAEL SIKIRICA, Individually; and JOHN and JANE DOE 1-10, Individually (the names John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

MICHAEL DAVIS-GUIDER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TROY; RONALD FOUNTAIN, Individually; DANIELLE COONRADT,Individually; CHARLES MCDONALD, Individually; RENSSELAER COUNTY;MICHAEL SIKIRICA, Individually; and JOHNand JANE DOE 1-10, Individually (the namesJohn and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Defendants.

1:17-CV-1290 (FJS/DJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 8, 2019

APPEARANCES

OFFICE OF BRETT H. KLEIN, ESQ. PLLC

305 Broadway, Suite 600

New York, New York 10007

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PATTISON SAMPSON GINSBERG

& GRIFFIN, PLLC

22 First Street

P.O. Box 208

Troy, New York 12181

Attorneys for Defendants City of Troy,

Ronald Fountain, Danielle Coonradt,

and Charles McDonald

BAILEY, JOHNSON, DELEONARDIS

& PECK, P.C.

5 Pine West Plaza, Suite 507

Washington Avenue Extension

Albany, New York 12205

Attorneys for Defendants Rensselaer

County and Michael Sikirica

OF COUNSEL

BRETT H. KLEIN, ESQ.

DONALD J. SHANLEY, ESQ.

CRYSTAL R. PECK, ESQ.

JOHN W. BAILEY, ESQ.

SCULLIN, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Michael Davis-Guider ("Plaintiff") brings this action against the City of Troy ("Defendant City of Troy"), Ronald Fountain ("Defendant Fountain"), Danielle Coonradt ("Defendant Coonradt"), Charles McDonald ("Defendant McDonald"), Rensselaer County ("Defendant Rensselaer County"), and Michael Sikirica ("Defendant Sikirica") seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees for alleged violations of his civil rights. See generally Dkt. No. 1, Complaint. Defendant Rensselaer County and Defendant Sikirica (hereinafter collectively the "County Defendants") have moved to dismiss all claims in Plaintiff's complaint against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See generally Dkt. No. 14. Additionally, although not mentioned in their Notice of Motion, the County Defendants seek dismissal of their co-Defendants' cross-claims against them. See Dkt. No. 14-1 at 24-25.

II. BACKGROUND

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff was home with his girlfriend's daughter, "V.D.," who at the time was two years seven months of age. At some point that day, Plaintiff discovered V.D. unresponsive in her bed and immediately tried to administer C.P.R. and called 911. Emergency personnel arrived and administered C.P.R. V.D. remained unresponsive and was, therefore, transported to St. Mary's Hospital - Seton Hall. V.D. was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the hospital. Later that day, Defendant Fountain and Defendant McDonald, who were detectives with the City of Troy Police Department ("TPD"), questioned Plaintiff. Plaintiff told the detectives that he found V.D. unresponsive in her bed and attempted to perform C.P.R. before calling 911. Plaintiff denied having engaged in any acts that caused or could have contributed to V.D.'s death.

On February 27, 2015, Defendant Sikirica, who had a contract with Defendant Rensselaer County to conduct forensic investigations and prepare autopsy results, performed an autopsy on V.D. in the presence of "Defendant TPD officers." Based on the results of the autopsy, Defendant Fountain requested that Plaintiff come to the station house for further questioning. Plaintiff obliged and reiterated the same chain of events at the station house.

On August 15, 2015, Defendant Sikirica issued V.D.'s autopsy report in which he determined the manner of her death to be homicide. In the report, Defendant Sikirica stated that V.D. died, specifically, of hypovelmic shock, which was brought on by a large hemoperitoneum created by multiple lacerations on V.D.'s liver. The lacerations were caused by fractures of V.D.'s 9^th and 10^th ribs on her right side, which was caused by a blunt force trauma. In his report, Defendant Sikirica also noted that V.D. was "reportedly found unresponsive with reported history of attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a large adult." On October 2, 2015, TPD arrested Plaintiff, charged him with manslaughter and remanded him to the Rensselaer County Jail, where he remained for roughly eleven months until he was acquitted at the conclusion of his criminal trial.

Thereafter, on November 22, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant Sikirica's medical opinion was unsupported and that Defendant Sikirica and Defendant TPD officers ignored clear facts, which led to fabricated evidence and his wrongful arrest and incarceration. Plaintiff claimed that each of the individual Defendants either directly participated in, supervised and approved of, conspired to participate in, or failed to intervene in illegal acts despite a meaningful opportunity to do so. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserted that his unlawful arrest and imprisonment were the direct result of inadequate policies, procedures, regulations, practices and/or customs of Defendant City of Troy, including the failure to properly instruct, train, supervise and/or discipline employees, which were implemented or tolerated by policymaking officials for Defendant City of Troy, including but not limited to, the TPD Chief of Police. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that his unlawful arrest and imprisonment were the direct result of unconstitutional customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of Defendant Rensselaer County, which included, but were not limited to, inadequate screening, hiring, retaining, training and supervising of its forensic pathologist, Defendant Sikirica, and employees of the Rensselaer County District Attorney's Office. Plaintiff asserted that this was not an isolated event and that Defendant City of Troy and Defendant Rensselaer County were made aware from previous lawsuits, notices of claims, news reports, internal investigations, and failed prosecutions that Defendant Sikirica and many TPD officers had engaged in similar unlawful misconduct in the past.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserted the following eight causes of action:

(1) false arrest/unlawful imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual Defendants;

(2) malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual Defendants; (3) violation of the right to a fair trial under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual Defendants;

(4) failure to intervene under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual Defendants;

(5) conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against the individual Defendants;

(6) municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant City of Troy;

(7) municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Rensselaer County; and

(8) malicious prosecution under New York state law against all Defendants.¹

III. DISCUSSION

A. The County Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them

1. Legal standards

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) "challenges only the 'legal feasibility' of a complaint." Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554, 558 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Global Network Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 2006)). "'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."'" Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, 872 F.3d 97, 104 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). "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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation omitted).

"'While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 505 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). Determining whether to dismiss a plaintiff's claim for relief "entail[s] judgment calls on which reasonable minds can differ in a not insignificant number of cases" because it is a "'context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.'" Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 191 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S. Ct. 1937).

Furthermore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured[.]

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S. Ct. 2250 (1988) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Sikirica was acting under color of state law, and the County Defendants do not challenge this assertion.

2. False arrest/unlawful imprisonment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A claim for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "derives from [the] Fourth Amendment right to remain free from unreasonable seizures, which includes the right to remain free from arrest absent probable cause." Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "When examining 42 U.S.C. § 1983 false arrest claims, federal courts "'look to the law of the state in which the arrest occurred.'" Ying Li v. City of New York, 246 F. Supp. 3d 578, 600 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Dancy v. McGinley, 843 F.3d 93, 107 (2d...