Felix v. City of N.Y., 16-CV-5845 (AJN)
| Decision Date | 30 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-5845 (AJN) |
| Citation | 344 F.Supp.3d 644 |
| Parties | Dorrelien FELIX, Margaly Felix, and Jonathan C. Moore, as Administrator of the Estate of David Felix, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jonathan C. Moore, Luna Droubi, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Joshua Joseph Lax, Brian Christopher Francolla, Matthew Joseph Modafferi, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs Dorrelien Felix and Margaly Felix, individually, and Jonathan C. Moore, as Administrator of the Estate of David Felix, bring this suit against the City of New York ("The City"), New York Police Department ("NYPD") detectives Harold Carter and Vincente Mathias ("Detective Defendants"), the not-for-profit organization the Bridge, Inc., and Jane Doe, an employee of the Bridge. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia , that Mr. Felix's April 25, 2015 death was caused by violations of Mr. Felix's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and by the City's failure to provide protections to which he was entitled under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Before the Court is the City's motion to dismiss the municipal liability and disability discrimination claims in Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant the City's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Court begins by reviewing the factual and procedural background leading to this motion to dismiss.
The following facts are taken from the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and assumed to be true for purposes of evaluating the Motion to Dismiss.1 See Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc. , 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007) ; ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd. , 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) ().
On April 25, 2015, two NYPD detectives, Harold Carter and Vincente Matias, pursued David Felix, a 24-year-old individual diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
, from his apartment into the lobby of his supportive living facility. FAC ¶¶ 2, 10, 17, 57. In a physical altercation, Detective Carter shot Mr. Felix once in the chest. FAC ¶ 95. Mr. Felix died shortly thereafter. FAC ¶¶ 97–103.
The encounter between the NYPD detectives and Mr. Felix was precipitated by the following sequence of events. The detectives visited the Bridge facility at 538 6th Street in Manhattan for purposes of speaking with Mr. Felix about his alleged involvement in a robbery. Id. ¶¶ 69, 72. They secured access to the building, and then to Mr. Felix's apartment, by demanding the assistance of a Bridge employee on duty at the facility, Jane Doe. FAC ¶¶ 77, 79, 81, 84–85. Ms. Doe informed the detectives that the facility housed individuals with mental illnesses and that Mr. Felix was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
. FAC ¶ 82.
According to the amended complaint, this information should have triggered NYPD procedures for working with "emotionally disturbed persons" like Mr. Felix. FAC ¶ 115. Under these procedures, officers are not supposed to take emotionally disturbed persons into custody "without the specific direction of a supervisor" and are required to "attempt to isolate and contain" such persons "while maintaining a zone of safety until arrival of a patrol supervisor" and other emergency personnel. FAC ¶ 116 (quoting NYPD Patrol Guide). The detectives did not follow these policies.
Instead, after Ms. Doe unsuccessfully attempted to contact a supervisor, they refused to wait and demanded that Ms. Doe escort them to Mr. Felix's apartment and open the door. FAC ¶¶ 83–84. Ms. Doe complied without first announcing to Mr. Felix that the detectives wished to speak with him. FAC ¶¶ 85–86. The detectives did not have a warrant to access Mr. Felix's apartment and did not knock and announce or request entry, nor were exigent circumstances present at the time of their entry. FAC ¶¶ 85, 87. They merely possessed an "I-Card," an NYPD tool that "tracks individuals that officers seek to interview or arrest." FAC ¶¶ 73, 106. According to the amended complaint, I-Cards do not provide a valid basis for entry to residences for the purposes of apprehending suspects. FAC ¶ 110 & n.1 ().
In response to the detectives' entry to his apartment, Mr. Felix, who feared police, panicked and ran down the fire escape. FAC ¶¶ 32, 90, 92. The detectives ran down the stairs to the lobby, where they encountered Mr. Felix. FAC ¶ 92–93. A physical altercation ensued, culminating in the shooting. FAC ¶ 95. The amended complaint contends that this encounter represented the detectives' deliberately forcing a physical confrontation, using excessive force, and treating Mr. Felix in a "wantonly reckless" manner. FAC ¶¶ 117–18.
Plaintiffs contend that two alleged customs, policies, or practices caused violations of Mr. Felix's rights, and led to the foregoing encounter: (1) the use of "I-Cards" to gain access to residences and (2) failing to properly handle emotionally disturbed persons. Plaintiffs further attribute violations of Mr. Felix's rights to the NYPD's failure to properly train officers with respect to both policies and the NYPD's alleged failure to screen officers for their propensity for violence. Finally, they allege the encounter resulted in violations of Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
To substantiate its charge that the NYPD has a policy of permitting improper use of I-Cards, FAC ¶ 108, the amended complaint points to three facts. First, the NYPD Patrol Guide § 208-23 fails to clearly state that I-Cards do not constitute warrants and cannot serve as a legal basis for entry to a residence. FAC ¶ 109. Further, a 2015 Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB") report analyzing improper entries and searches over the period in which this incident occurred noted a pattern of improper use of I-Cards as a basis for entry and apprehension. Specifically, the CCRB Report found that 28 out of 174, or 16 percent, of substantiated CCRB complaints involved the improper use of I-Cards. FAC ¶¶ 110, 112 & n.2. Third, in response to this pattern, the CCRB recommended (a) correcting the NYPD Patrol Guide to clearly state that I-Cards were not warrants and (b) clarifying for detectives both the situations in which it was permissible for them to create I-Cards rather than warrants and the need to use warrants to apprehend individuals inside private residences. FAC ¶ 113a–b.
Plaintiffs allege that this policy caused the alleged violations of Mr. Felix's rights because the Defendant Detectives possessed only an I-Card, and not a warrant, and because these alleged policy issues were present when the Detective Defendants entered Mr. Felix's residence.
The amended complaint further alleges that the Detective Defendants' treatment of Mr. Felix was reflective of NYPD's de facto custom, policy, or practice of failing to properly handle emotionally disturbed persons like Mr. Felix. It identifies these policies by pointing to three pieces of evidence.
First, an Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD ("OIG") report published in 2017 allegedly identified "long-standing deficiencies in the NYPD's handling of response to EDPs—shorthand for "emotionally disturbed persons." FAC ¶ 123 & n.3 (). According to Plaintiffs, this report criticizes the NYPD's lack of an emotionally disturbed persons policy and the NYPD's failure to properly train police officers on handling emotionally disturbed persons prior to summer 2015 beyond offering only a "one-day training" involving "a short, basic lecture on mental illnesses" and four role-playing scenarios. FAC ¶ 125 (quoting the OIG Report at 10). Second, the City implemented a Crisis Intervention Team ("CIT") training a few months after Mr. Felix's death, based on months of research and consultations with experts. FAC ¶ 122; OIG Report at 10.
Finally, the amended complaint alleges that the City was or should have been aware of its officers' pattern of mistreating emotionally disturbed persons, but failed to adequately screen, train, supervise, or discipline them. FAC ¶ 121. Specifically, the amended complaint contends that officers should have been trained in the use of equipment other than guns to restrain emotionally disturbed persons; evaluation of initial encounters between officers and emotionally disturbed persons; and in emotionally disturbed persons' needs for adequate medical care. FAC ¶ 121.
As a final matter, Plaintiffs allege a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act on the grounds that the City failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Felix's disability and denied to Mr. Felix the benefits of the City's services, programs, and activities by failing to properly train, supervise, and discipline police officers regarding crisis intervention techniques, otherwise providing insufficient resources, and failing to follow established policies and procedures regarding crisis intervention techniques for individuals with mental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Nassau Cnty.
...result in a formal finding of misconduct for such complaints to support findings of failure to supervise." Felix v. City of New York, 344 F. Supp. 3d 644, 662 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).i. The County Defendants (a) Widespread Practice Theory First, Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that there is a C......
-
In re N.Y.C. Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations
...in practices that constituted excessive force, false arrest, or retaliation when confronting protesters. See Felix v. City of New York , 344 F. Supp. 3d 644, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ; Kucharczyk v. Westchester Cty. , 95 F. Supp. 3d 529, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). However, Yates is not the only case; ......
-
Savarese v. City of N.Y.
...customs or policies based on governmental reports documenting constitutional deficiencies or misconduct." Felix v. City of New York , 344 F. Supp. 3d 644, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Although the fact "[t]hat a report [is] published after the subject incident does not prevent plaintiffs form relyi......
-
I.S. v. Binghamton City Sch. Dist.
...by the [municipal] employee will frequently cause the deprivation of a citizen's constitutional rights." Felix v. City of New York , 344 F. Supp. 3d 644, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Jenkins v. City of New York , 478 F.3d 76, 94 [2d Cir. 2007] )."In order for municipal nonfeasance—e.g., the......