Holmes v. Cnty. of Montgomery
| Decision Date | 12 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-0617 (LEK/DJS) |
| Parties | SHAWN HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Plaintiff Shawn Holmes has filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Montgomery (the "County"), the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff's Department"), Montgomery County Sheriff Michael Amato, three unnamed Montgomery County Correction Officers ("John Does #1-3"), and Correction Officer Kagan Buck (together, "Defendants"). Dkt. No. 15 ("Amended Complaint"). Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated in the Montgomery County Jail, he was violently assaulted in violation of his rights under the United States Constitution and New York tort law. Id.
Defendants have moved to dismiss several of Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. Nos. 25 ("Second Motion to Dismiss" or "Motion"); 25-6 ("Memorandum"). Plaintiff opposes this Motion, Dkt. No. 26 ("Opposition"), to which Defendants reply, Dkt. No. 29 ("Reply"). For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion.
At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court draws all facts from the Amended Complaint, and "assumes all factual allegations in the Complaint are true." Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., No. 18-CV-1228, 2020 WL 777462, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (Kahn, J.) (citing Bryant v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, 692 F.3d 202, 210 (2d Cir. 2012)). Besides the facts alleged in the complaint itself, "a district court may [also] consider . . . documents attached to the [complaint] as exhibits, . . . documents incorporated by reference in the [complaint], and documents the [complaint] relies [so] heavily upon that they are render[ed] integral to the [complaint]." ICM Controls Corp. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., No. 12-CV-1766, 2019 WL 7631075, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2019) (Kahn, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010)).
On October 7, 2018, officers of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department arrested Plaintiff and took him to the County jail. Am. Compl. ¶ 13.
Shortly after arriving at the jail, Correction Officer Buck began to ask Plaintiff a series of questions about Plaintiff's mental health. Id. ¶ 14. Partway through Buck's questions, Plaintiff asked Buck and several other nearby correction officers ("C.O.s") if he could use the phone. Id. Buck told Plaintiff that he could use the phone if he answered "a few more questions." Id. Plaintiff proceeded to answer more questions, but Buck still refused to let Plaintiff use the phone. Id. Plaintiff then refused to answer any more questions until Buck allowed him to use the phone. Id. Plaintiff's refusal angered Buck, who began to "taunt" Plaintiff, telling him to "just go home and die" and "to kill himself." Id.
At this point, Buck and "approximately three other unknown" C.O.s1 took Plaintiff to a cell. Id. ¶ 15. Buck then told Plaintiff to sit down on the bed in the cell, which Plaintiff did. Id.¶ 16. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff stood up to speak with another unknown C.O. who was standing near the cell. Id. Though Plaintiff stood, he never exited the cell, nor attempted to escape. Id. ¶ 17.
Buck was still "irate" over Plaintiff's requests to use the phone and refusal to answer all the mental health questions, and when he saw Plaintiff stand up he "brutally assaulted [Plaintiff] without cause, reason[,] or provocation." Id. Specifically, Buck repeatedly "slam[med" Plaintiff's head against the wall, despite the fact that Plaintiff "posed no threat" to Buck or any other officer. Id. Another officer then had to pull Buck off Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 18.
As a result of Buck's assault, Plaintiff had injuries to his head, face, eyes, and limbs. Id. ¶ 19. He also began to suffer from tremors, seizures, and emotional trauma. Id.
Plaintiff later reported Buck's assault, spoke with two investigators at the Sheriff's Department, and requested that the Sheriff's Department investigate Buck's conduct. Id. ¶ 20. However, even though other unknown C.O.s corroborated Plaintiff's story, the Sheriff's Department never conducted a "meaningful investigation." Id. Nor did the department take any "meaningful action" against Buck. Id. ¶ 21.
Buck's assault of Plaintiff is not the first time that C.O.s have assaulted an inmate at the County Jail. Am. Compl. ¶ 23. For example, in 2015, multiple officers were arrested and prosecuted for "mistreat[ing]" an inmate named Ryan Cook. Id. Also in 2015, C.O.s attacked an inmate named Jose Samuels when he requested a transport van to accommodate his physical disabilities. Id. ¶ 24.
Plaintiff asserts that these cases demonstrate a "repeated pattern of constitutional violations at the . . . County Jail, especially relating to excessive force." Id. ¶ 33. Despite "havingknown for years" about this pattern, Defendants "have failed to take any meaningful remedial action." Id.2
Based on these events, Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of action: (1) Excessive force and failure to protect claims under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Buck and John Does #1-3, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27-30; (2) claims against Amato, the Sheriff's Department, and the County for "fail[ing] to institute appropriate written policies on . . . the use of force," or, alternatively, for instituting such policies but refusing to enforce them, id. ¶¶ 31-38; (3) claims against Amato, the Sheriff's Department, and the County for failure to train, supervise, and discipline their employees; id. ¶¶ 39-44; (4) state law assault and battery claims against Buck, Amato, the Sheriff's Department, and the County, id. ¶¶ 45-48; and (5) negligentsupervision against Amato, the Sheriff's Department, and the County, id. ¶¶ 49-51. In addition, Plaintiff asks for punitive damages against Buck and John Does #1-3. Id. ¶¶ 52-53
Plaintiff initially filed suit on April 19, 2019 in state court. Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendants then removed the action to this Court on May 23, 2019, Dkt. No. 1 ("Notice of Removal"), before filing a motion to dismiss on June 7, 2019. Dkt. No. 10 ("First Motion to Dismiss"). In response to the First Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on June 28, 2018 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). See Dkt. No. 15; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff then also filed an opposition to the First Motion to Dismiss, arguing primarily that the Court should deny the First Motion to Dismiss as moot. Dkt. No. 17 ("Opposition to First Motion to Dismiss"). Defendants made no reply to this filing, instead filing the Second Motion to Dismiss on July 26, 2019. See Mot.
To survive a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . 'to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "Put another way, a claim is plausible if it is supported by 'enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the alleged misconduct].'" Facci-Brahler v. Montgomery Cty., No. 18-CV-941, 2020 WL 360873, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020) (Kahn, J.) (alterations in original) (quoting Twombly,550 U.S. at 556). "In assessing whether this standard has been met, courts 'must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[] . . . .'" Charles Ramsey Co., Inc. v. Fabtech-NY LLC, No. 18-CV-546, 2020 WL 352614, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020) (Kahn, J.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007)).
Defendants seek dismissal of all causes of action against the Sheriff's Department, Amato, and the other individual defendants in their official capacities. Mot. at 2. They also seek dismissal of the second, third, and fifth causes of action in their entireties. Id.
The Court addresses the following issues, in turn: (A) the First Motion to Dismiss; (B) the claims against the Sheriff's Department; (C) the claims against Amato; (D) the claims against Buck and John Does #1-3 in their official capacities; (E) the second and third causes of action for municipal liability; and (F) the fifth cause of action for negligent supervision under New York law.
Preliminarily, the Court addresses the First Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff argues that, in light of the Amended Complaint, the Court should deny the First Motion to Dismiss as moot. Resp. to First Mot. to Dismiss at 5-6. Defendants have lodged no objection to this argument. Therefore, because "[t]ypically, the filing of an amended complaint following the filing of a motion to dismiss the initial complaint moots the motion to dismiss," Praileau v. Fischer, 930 F. Supp. 2d 383, 388 (N.D.N.Y. 2013), the Court denies the First Motion to Dismiss as moot.
The Sheriff's Department moves to dismiss all claims against it, arguing that the Department cannot be sued as an entity separate from the County itself under either federal orstate law. Mem. at 9. The Court agrees. See Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial