Hayes v. Cnty. of Sullivan

• Decision Date: 30 March 2012
• Docket Number: Case Nos. 07–CV–7667 (KMK), 09–CV–2071 (KMK).
• Citation: 853 F.Supp.2d 400
• Parties: Earl HAYES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SULLIVAN, Defendant. Earl Hayes, Plaintiff, v. Detective Jason Gorr of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Detective Don Starner of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Deputy Patrolman Richard Morgan of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Colonel Smith of the Sullivan County's Sheriff's Dep't, Lieutenant Cole of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Corporal Gardner of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, and the County of Sullivan, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

853 F.Supp.2d 400

Earl HAYES, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF SULLIVAN, Defendant.

Earl Hayes, Plaintiff,

v.Detective Jason Gorr of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Detective Don Starner of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Deputy Patrolman Richard Morgan of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Colonel Smith of the Sullivan County's Sheriff's Dep't, Lieutenant Cole of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, Corporal Gardner of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, the Sullivan County Sheriff's Dep't, and the County of Sullivan, Defendants.

Case Nos. 07–CV–7667 (KMK), 09–CV–2071 (KMK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 30, 2012.

Earl Hayes, Ossining, NY, pro se.

Michael Davidoff, Esq., Drew, Davidoff & Edwards Law Offices, LLP, Monticello, NY, for County Defendants.

Samuel S. Yasgur, Esq., County of Sullivan, Monticello, NY, for Individual Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge.

Earl Hayes (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against the County of Sullivan (“County”), the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department (“Sheriff's Department”) (collectively, “County Defendants”), and individual Defendants Detective Jason Gorr (“Detective Gorr” or “Gorr”), Detective Don Starner (“Detective Starner” or “Starner”), Deputy Patrolman Richard Morgan (“Deputy Morgan” or “Morgan”), Colonel Harold Smith, Jr. (“Colonel Smith” or “Smith”), Lieutenant Cole (“Lieutenant Cole” or “Cole”), and Corporal Harry Gardner (“Corporal Gardner” or “Gardner”) in their official and individual capacities (collectively, “Individual Defendants”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). Plaintiff alleges that his federal constitutional rights were violated before and during his arrest on October 26, 2005, and in the court proceedings leading up to his guilty plea, which he entered on March 2, 2007. Plaintiff also alleges that his federal constitutional rights were violated during his incarceration at the Sullivan County Jail. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Facts

1. Plaintiff's Arrest

Plaintiff was arrested on October 26, 2005 for driving with a suspended license and for possession of a forged instrument. (Aff. of Det. Jason Gorr in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Gorr Aff.”) ¶ 15.) The Parties dispute the chain of events which led to Plaintiff's arrest.¹

Defendants' version of the facts starts with the decision of Judge Burton Ledina, the Sullivan County Court judge who presided over Plaintiff's suppression hearing on December 21, 2006 and January 9, 2007. On February 9, 2007, Judge Ledina issued a nine-page decision, denying Plaintiff's suppression motion, and finding that Detective Gorr and Deputy Morgan had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on October 26, 2005. See People v. Hayes, Indictment No. 13–2006 (N.Y.Cnty.Ct. Feb. 9, 2007) ( “Suppression Order” ).

As found by Judge Ledina, on October 26, 2005, a security officer at the Wal–Mart store in the town of Thompson contacted Detective Starner of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department, and informed him that an individual had attempted to purchase a cell phone using a credit card where the name printed on the front of the card did not match the name which appeared on the register receipt after the card was scanned. ( Suppression Order 2; Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 56.1 (“Indiv. Defs.' 56.1”) ¶¶ 15–16; Aff. of Det. Don A. Starner in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Starner Aff.”) ¶¶ 8–9.) The name printed on the front of the card was “Earl Hayes,” but the name which appeared on the receipt was “Joblanski Samuels.” ( Suppression Order 2; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 16; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15.) Starner requested that Detective Gorr, also of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department, respond to the call. (Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 17; Starner Aff. ¶ 10.) Upon arrival at the Wal–Mart, Gorr met with Joe Brown, a Wal–Mart loss prevention associate, who showed him a copy of the receipt bearing the name Joblanski Samuels. ( Suppression Order 2; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15.) ² During this meeting, Gorr and Brown were advised that the individual had re-entered the store and was purchasing a laptop computer. ( Suppression Order 2; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 18.) Using the store's video surveillance equipment, security personnel pointed out the individual, Plaintiff Earl Hayes, to Gorr. ( Id.) Gorr followed Plaintiff out of the store and observed him place the laptop in the trunk of a car and open the driver's side door. ( Suppression Order 2; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 19.) Gorr then approached Plaintiff, identified himself, and told Plaintiff that he wanted to speak to him regarding the credit card Plaintiff had used in the Wal–Mart. ( Suppression Order 2; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15.) Gorr asked Plaintiff for identification and Plaintiff produced a New York State identification card in the name of Earl Hayes. Suppression Order 2–3. According to Gorr, Plaintiff explained that there had been a problem with the cashier and produced several credit cards, identifying a Pay Pal card as the one he had used in the store. ( Suppression Order 3; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 23.) ³ While Gorr was speaking to Plaintiff in the parking lot, Deputy Morgan, of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department, arrived as back-up. ( Suppression Order 3; Aff. of Richard Morgan in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Morgan Aff.”) ¶¶ 6–8.) Deputy Morgan ran a check of Plaintiff's driver's license and it came back over the radio that Plaintiff's license was suspended. (Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 24; Suppression Hr'g Tr. 19:20–25, 138:13–20, 141:4–7, Dec. 21, 2006.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff then told Gorr and Morgan that he had not driven the car and that a friend named “Mark” had driven him to the Wal–Mart. ( Suppression Order 3; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 25; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15; Morgan Aff. ¶ 10.) Gorr asked Morgan to enter the Wal–Mart and page Mark. (Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 25; Morgan Aff. ¶ 11.) According to Morgan, Mark was paged twice by store personnel and never appeared. (Morgan Aff. ¶¶ 12–13.)

According to Gorr, Plaintiff then used his cell phone to call his then-fiancee Dina Tomlinson (“Tomlinson”), who was listed as the owner of the car. Gorr claims that he asked to speak with Tomlinson and she informed Gorr that Plaintiff had been alone in the car when he left her. ( Suppression Order 3; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 26–27; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15.) Gorr and Plaintiff then went into the Wal–Mart and Plaintiff stayed with Morgan while Gorr entered the store's security office to watch surveillance videos of the parking lot. Suppression Order 3. According to Gorr, the surveillance videos showed Plaintiff parking the vehicle and walking into the Wal–Mart store alone. ( Suppression Order 3; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 28; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15.) ⁴ Gorr then arrested Plaintiff for driving with a suspended license and for possession of a forged instrument (the credit card). ( Suppression Order 3; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 30; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff was searched and several items including papers, an activation slip, shopping cards, gift cards, and credit cards were found on his person. ( Suppression Order 3–4; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 31; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15; Suppression Hr'g Tr. 27:3–31:8, Dec. 21, 2006.) Tomlinson arrived to claim her car and denied ownership of the items in the car. She granted Gorr her written consent to search the car and pursuant to the search, Gorr found two laptops (one that was turned on and the one that had just been purchased and placed in the trunk), a phone, and various documents and receipts. ( Suppression Order 4; Indiv. Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 32–33; Gorr Aff. ¶ 15; Suppression Hr'g Tr. 33:3–37:2, Dec. 21,2006.)

Plaintiff, however, presents a very different version of the events leading up to his arrest. According to Plaintiff, the Wal–Mart parking lot encounter with Detective Gorr began at approximately 2:00 pm on October 26, 2005. (Pl.'s Aff. in Opp'n to [Indiv.] Defs.' Mot. For Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Aff. in Opp'n to Indiv. Defs.”) ¶ 11.) Gorr approached Plaintiff, identified himself, and asked Plaintiff to produce identification. ( Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff then handed Gorr his Department of Motor Vehicles-issued identification card. ( Id.) Plaintiff claims that Gorr then demanded that Plaintiff empty his pockets, which Plaintiff refused to do, and that Plaintiff asked for his identification back. ( Id.) When Gorr allegedly refused to return Plaintiff's identification, Plaintiff claims that he attempted to walk away from Gorr and leave the parking lot. ( Id.) According to Plaintiff, Gorr then grabbed him, struck him in the chest, and refused to let him leave. ( Id.) Gorr then allegedly removed all the property from Plaintiff's pockets, including six credit cards, and asked Plaintiff which card he had attempted to use in the Wal–Mart. ( Id.) Plaintiff claims he refused to answer Gorr, who asked Morgan to “hold” Plaintiff while Gorr entered the Wal–Mart alone. ( Id.) Approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, Gorr returned to the parking lot and told Plaintiff that his driver's license was suspended. ( Id.) Plaintiff claims that he denied driving to the Wal–Mart, and that Morgan continued to hold Plaintiff while Gorr again went back into the Wal–Mart for approximately 20 minutes. ( Id.) Plaintiff claims that when Gorr returned, he placed Plaintiff under arrest for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. ( Id.) ⁵

Gorr denies hitting Plaintiff in the chest (Gorr Aff. ¶ 9), and claims that he did not touch Plaintiff other than when he arrested Plaintiff, (Suppression Hr'g Tr. 61:12–15, Dec. 21, 2006). Gorr also claims that Plaintiff never said he wanted to leave and that Gorr never told Plaintiff that he was not free to leave before he was arrested. (Suppression Hr'g Tr. 60:4–11, 61:8–18, 65:3–23, Dec. 21,2006.)

After Plaintiff's arrest, Detective Starner prepared a search warrant application for Plaintiff's residence, which...