Domni v. Cnty. of Nassau
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CV 19-83 (JMA) (AKT) |
| Parties | LEK DOMNI, Plaintiff Pro Se, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER LAMONICA, POLICE OFFICER FREDERICK TIFARO, LIEUTENANT ROBERT V. VERLOTTE, DETECTIVE HOWE (first name unknown), DETECTIVE MOORE (first name unknown), and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-3, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pro Se Plaintiff Lek Domni ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Defendants County of Nassau ("County"), Police Officer Christopher Lamonica ("P.O. Lamonica"), Police Officer Frederick Tifaro ("P.O. Tifaro"), Lieutenant Robert V. Verlotte ("Lt. Verlotte"), Detective Howe, and Detective Moore (collectively, "Defendants") alleging various state and federal constitutional violations arising from his arrest and prosecution in state court. See generally Complaint ("Compl.") [DE 1]. Plaintiff has filed a motion (1) seeking leave to file a second amended complaint,1 pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) seeking to unseal state court grand jury minutes. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend and Unseal ("Pl.'s Mem.") [DE 50]; Plaintiff's ReplyMemorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend and Unseal ("Pl.'s Reply") [DE 53]. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion in its entirety. See Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Unseal ( ) [DE 51].
For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and to unseal state court grand jury minutes is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within 21 days of entry of this Order.
II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff brought his dog to the Massapequa Dog Park located in Nassau County, New York. Compl. ¶ 18. After an argument arose among the dog owners in the dog park, P.O. Lamonica and P.O. Tifaro were called to the scene. Id. ¶ 24. The officers directed certain dog owners, including Plaintiff, to exit the dog park. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff exited the dog park to speak with the officers, but then sought to re-enter the park to retrieve his dog. Id. ¶ 27. P.O. Lamonica physically blocked Plaintiff from re-entering the dog park to retrieve his dog. Id. Plaintiff again attempted to retrieve his dog, while walking with his hands by his sides, but P.O. Lamonica stepped in Plaintiff's walking path. Id. ¶ 28. This forced contact between the two, after which P.O. Lamonica "falsely" accused Plaintiff of bumping into him. Id. P.O. Lamonica proceeded to grab Plaintiff by the arm and neck and shove him against the police cruiser. Id. ¶ 29. He then "slammed" Plaintiff to the ground, "intentionally fell directly on top of Plaintiff," and "handcuffed Plaintiff so tight as to cause [him] further injuries." Id. ¶ 31. Thereafter, P.O. Lamonica claimed that Plaintiff not only bumped into him but also punched himin the face. Id. ¶ 30. According to Plaintiff, this accusation was false and made solely as a pretense to falsely arrest him. Id.
Plaintiff was then transported to the Seventh Precinct, where he was questioned by Detectives Howe and Moore. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Plaintiff claims that the detectives "prepared a typewritten statement containing false statements not issued by Plaintiff and intentionally omitted exculpatory information which negated Plaintiff's commission of any crime." Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff also claims that P.O. Tifaro drafted a false felony complaint against him, which "Lieutenant Verlotte authorized, supervised, and assisted in [] prepar[ing]." Id. ¶¶ 38-39. According to Plaintiff, the detectives conspired with P.O. Lamonica and P.O. Tifaro to falsely charge Plaintiff with a felony of assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and obstruction of government administration. Id. ¶ 36.
Plaintiff was thereafter detained in a holding cell for arraignment the following day, on October 31, 2017. Id. ¶ 37. After arraignment, Plaintiff was transported to the Nassau County Correctional Facility and held there until he was released on bail. Id. ¶ 43. On March 1, 2018, a grand jury proceeding was instituted against Plaintiff in the New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, at which P.O. Lamonica and P.O. Tifaro, civilian witnesses and Plaintiff testified. Id. ¶ 45. The grand jury returned a "No True Bill" and all charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. Id. ¶ 46.
In media coverage following Plaintiff's exoneration, Plaintiff claims that "Defendant Police Spokesperson, John Doe # 1, published a defamatory statement to the press in the underlying criminal matter, stating that '[The Nassau County Police Department] is extremely disappointed in the result.'" Id. ¶ 48. According to Plaintiff, this statement "reasonably impl[ied] to the readers that the grand jury wrongly decided the case, that there was significantevidence from which the grand jury should have held [Plaintiff] for trial on all charges and that [Plaintiff] was guilty of all charges when, in fact, the criminal case against him was made up of manufactured and false facts." Id. On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff served a Notice of Claim on Nassau County. Id. ¶ 49.
On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants alleging eleven federal and/or state causes of action for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, failure to intercede, civil conspiracy, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violations, and Monell liability. See generally Compl. On January 12, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer. See Answer [DE 12]. District Judge Feuerstein who was then assigned to this case held a conference with the parties on April 11, 2019. See DE 22. Subsequently, on May 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a brief letter motion to unseal the state court grand jury minutes on the grounds that Defendants' counsel, on two prior occasions, consented to unsealing the minutes. See DE 24; DE 26. Notwithstanding any prior representations purportedly made, Defendants opposed the motion arguing that under state law, the release of the grand jury minutes is prohibited by Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §190.25 (4) and Judiciary Law § 325, except upon the showing of a compelling and particularized need which was not made in these circumstances. See DE 25. On May 9, 2019, Judge Feuerstein denied Plaintiff's motion "based upon [D]efendants' opposition, and [P]laintiff's failure to make the requisite strong showing of particularized need for release of the Grand Jury minutes." See May 9, 2019 Electronic Order.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 25, 2019 without any indication in the record that he was granted permission by the Court - or obtained consent from Defendants -- to do so. See DE 39. Plaintiff subsequently filed his initial motion seeking leave to file anamended complaint and to unseal the grand jury minutes. See Plaintiff's First Motion to Amend and Unseal ("First Mot. to Amend") [DE 40]. The proposed amended complaint which was attached to the motion was the amended complaint previously filed [DE 39] which sought to add claims for excessive force and assault and battery against Defendants Lamonica and Trifaro and for defamation against Defendant Police Spokesperson Jane/John Doe. See Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC"), Ex. A to First Mot. to Amend [DE 40-1]. The PAC also removes Plaintiff's prior state and federal claims for false imprisonment and re-characterizes his claims for failure to intercede as a failure to supervise and intervene. See id. Lastly, the PAC seeks to include the full names of Defendants Howe and Moore, and to add Police Sergeant Michael Cibuls, Nassau County Correctional Officers John Does #1-3, and Nassau County Police Department Spokesperson Jane/John Doe as defendants in the action. See id. It is unclear precisely which claims are pleaded against the John Doe Correctional Officers.
On November 1, 2019, Judge Brown denied Plaintiff's initial motion, without prejudice, and with leave to renew after the parties met and conferred regarding the motion and submitted a joint proposed briefing schedule and discovery schedule. See November 1, 2019 Electronic Order. The parties proposed a discovery schedule as well as a briefing schedule for the anticipated motion to amend and to unseal the grand jury minutes. See DE 43. The schedules were "so ordered" by the Court the next day. See November 22, 2019 Electronic Order. On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff's fully briefed motion to amend and to unseal the grand jury minutes was filed. See Pl.'s Mem.; Defs.' Opp'n; Pl.'s Reply. On March 20, 2020, the case was reassigned to District Judge Joan Azrack and this Court.3 See March 20, 2020 Electronic Order.
III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in cases where a party cannot amend as a matter of course, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002); Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991). Whether to grant leave to amend is a decision squarely within the district court's discretion. Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 540 (2010) (); Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 338 F. Supp. 3d 242, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) () (quoting Gurary v. Winehouse, 235 F.3d 792, 801 (2d Cir. 2000)). A court "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial