Falls v. Pitt
| Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-8863 (KMK) |
| Parties | RAIQUAN K. FALLS, Plaintiff, v. (POLICE OFFICER) DETECTIVE MICHAEL PITT; (POLICE OFFICER) CARLOS CANARIO; (POLICE OFFICER) ANDRES ARESTIN; (POLICE OFFICER) JONATHAN SAINTICHE; (POLICE OFFICER) SERGEANT ANDERSON; (POLICE OFFICER) JOHN PEREZ; (POLICE OFFICER) MENDEZ; (REGISTERED NURSE) BLANCA LEMOS; (PRACTITIONER) HILLARY DURBIN; (PHYSICIAN) ALAN MADELL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Raiquan K. Falls ("Plaintiff") brought this Action against Defendants Newburgh Police Department Detective Michael Pitt ("Pitt"), Police Officer Carlos Canario ("Canario"), Police Officer Andres Arestin ("Arestin"), Police Officer Jonathan Saintiche ("Saintiche"), Sergeant Anderson ("Anderson"), Police Officer John Perez ("Perez"), Police Officer Mendez ("Mendez") (collectively with the others, "Police Defendants"), and Doctor Alan Madell ("Madell"), Nurse Practitioner Hilary Durbin-French ("Durbin-French"), and Nurse Blanca Lemos ("Lemos") (together with Police Defendants, "Defendants") alleging civil rights violations in relation to cavity searches conducted during Plaintiff's initial detention and again at Saint Luke's Cornwall Hospital ("Saint Luke's"). (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 22).
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Amend ("the Motion"), (Dkt Nos. 111, 125), and his renewed Application for the appointment of pro bono counsel ("the Application"), (Dkt. No. 146; see also Dkt. No. 26). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Application is denied.
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on November 15, 2016 against Arestin, Pitt, Canario, Saintiche, and "Registered Nurse Jane Doe." .) On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. (Dkt. No. 4.) On November 18, 2016, the Court directed the County Attorney for the County of Orange to ascertain the identity of the Jane Doe nurse at St. Luke's involved in the events on May 8, 2015. (Dkt. No. 6.) On February 7, 2017, Plaintiff submitted the Amended Complaint, (Am. Compl.), and a list of parties in the Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 19). The Amended Complaint added Madell, Durbin-French, Lemos, Anderson, Perez, and Mendez as Defendants. (Am. Compl.) On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an application asking the Court to appoint pro bono counsel to represent him. (Dkt. No. 26.) On May 2, 2017, the Court denied the request without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 27.)
On October 6, 2017, Madell and Durbin-French moved to dismiss all claims filed against them (the "Motion To Dismiss"). (Dkt. No. 64-66).) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or otherwise respond, (Dkt. No. 80), and on January 22, 2018, the Court deemed the Motion To Dismiss fully submitted, (Dkt. No. 81).
Meanwhile, discovery proceeded as to the other Defendants. Following the completion of discovery, on July 9, 2018, the Police Defendants sought leave to file a summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 101.) The same day, Madell, Durbin-French, and Lemos also sought leave to file a summary judgment motion, but noted that decision on Madell and Durbin-French's MotionTo Dismiss was still pending. (Dkt. No. 102.) On July 18, 2018, the Court set a briefing schedule for all Defendants to file summary judgment motions. (Dkt. No. 104.)
On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion & Order granting Madell and Durbin-French's Motion To Dismiss. ("August 2018 Opinion" (Dkt No. 109).) However, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend his complaint and correct the deficiencies with respect to the dismissed claims. (Id. at 16.) On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff signed his Proposed Second Amended Complaint ("PSAC"), which was docketed on September 11, 2018. (Dkt. No. 111.) On September 14, 2018, Police Defendants filed a letter objecting to the PSAC on the grounds that it "purports to assert new matters and claims with regard to them . . . without leave of the Court on the eve of summary judgment practice." (Dkt. No. 113.) On November 7, 2018, the Court issued an Order construing Plaintiff's PSAC as a Motion to Amend, and setting a schedule for Police Defendants' Response and Plaintiff's Reply, ("November 2018 Order" (Dkt. No. 125).) The Court simultaneously stayed the briefing of Defendants' expected summary judgment motions pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. (Id.) On December 4, 2018, Police Defendants filed their Response and accompanying papers. (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Amend ( ) (Dkt. No. 127); Aff. of David L. Posner, Esq. ("Posner Aff.") (Dkt. Nos. 126).) On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Reply,
On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a "Declaration in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel," ("Pl.'s Decl." (Dkt. No. 146)), thereby renewing his earlier (previously rejected) Application for appointment of pro bono counsel. (Dkt. No. 26.)
As explained in its November 2018 Order, although the Court granted Plaintiff permission to amend in light of the dismissal of claims against Madell and Durbin-French, that permission "cannot reasonably be read to allow Plaintiff carte blanche to add new claims against the Police Defendants, who were not movants in the Motion To Dismiss." (Nov. 2018 Order 3.) Accordingly, insofar as Plaintiff has added claims beyond those that were included in his Amended Complaint, his pleadings must satisfy the traditional requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (See id. 4 n.1.)
Under Rule 15(a), 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," however, "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). While the Court "has discretion to deny leave [to amend] for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party . . . outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason for the denial is an abuse of discretion." McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200-01 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted); New Amsterdam Capital Partners, LLC v. Wilson, No. 11-CV-9716, 2015 WL 1137576, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2015) . Thus, in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend a pleading, the Court considers "(i) whether the party seeking the amendment has unduly delayed; (ii) whether thatparty is acting in good faith; (iii) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced; and (iv) whether the amendment will be futile." Sandler v. Montefiore Health Sys., In., No 16-CV-2258, 2017 WL 2226599, at *2 . The Second Circuit has explained that to determine whether an amendment unduly prejudices a non-moving party, the Court should "generally consider whether the assertion of the new claim or defense would (i) require the opponent to expend significant additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (ii) significantly delay the resolution of the dispute; or (iii) prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another jurisdiction." Portelos v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-3141, 2015 WL 5475494, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2015) (quoting Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 284 (2d Cir. 2000)).
The Court first considers which, if any, of the claims asserted in Plaintiff's PSAC amount to "new claims against the Police Defendants" such that they must be analyzed under Rule 15(a) standards. (See Nov. 2018 Order 3-4). The Court then conducts the relevant analysis to consider whether to permit the addition of such claims.
In Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, at approximately 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2015, he was arrested following a pursuit on foot in "the area of 15 Lutheran Street" in the City of Newburgh. (Am. Compl. II.D ¶ 1.) Plaintiff described how officers then conducted an invasive strip search, and seized drugs hidden on his body. (Id. II.D ¶¶ 2-5.) Following the search, when Plaintiff was "brought back into the booking room" and shackled by his ankles to a bench, he "snatched the drugs from out of [the officers'] hands and . . . tried to swallow it," but was unsuccessful in doing so. (Id. II.D ¶ 3.) The officers recovered the drugs from Plaintiff'smouth by tasering and pepper spraying him. (Id.) Plaintiff was then brought to Saint Luke's to "wash the pepper spray out of [his] eyes," and where his "emergency room caregivers" were Madell, Durbin-French, and Lemos. (Id. II.D ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff alleges that Lemos "forcibly stuck her fingers inside of [Plaintiff's] rectum" in an unsuccessful search for contraband. (Id.) Based on the above factual allegations, the Amended Complaint raised claims for "violating [Plaintiff's] Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure," as well as claims for "unlawful arrest, malicious abuse of process[,] excessive force," civil rights conspiracy, and violation of his "limited right to privacy." (Id. II.D ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff's PSAC closely resembles his Amended Complaint. The PSAC names the same ten Defendants, , and describes precisely the same events (while adding more factual detail). . As Police Defendants acknowledge, the PSAC alleges "the same false arrest and excessive force claims," the same "challenge to...
To continue reading
Request your trial