Isr. v. City of Syracuse

• Decision Date: 16 September 2021
• Docket Number: 5:21-CV-0915 (DNH/ML)
• Parties: BISHOP ABRAHAM S. ISRAEL; and JESUS CHRIST MINISTRIES, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE; SGT. CARLEO, Syracuse Police Officer; SISLEY, Syracuse Police Officer; WOLFE, Syracuse Police Officer; KIMPEL, Syracuse Police Officer; MARCUS DeBOTTIS, Jr., Syracuse Police Officer; LAGO, Syracuse Police Officer; and RANETTE RELEFORD, CRB Administrator, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

BISHOP ABRAHAM S. ISRAEL; and JESUS CHRIST MINISTRIES, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SYRACUSE; SGT. CARLEO, Syracuse Police Officer; SISLEY, Syracuse Police Officer; WOLFE, Syracuse Police Officer; KIMPEL, Syracuse Police Officer; MARCUS DeBOTTIS, Jr., Syracuse Police Officer; LAGO, Syracuse Police Officer; and RANETTE RELEFORD, CRB Administrator, Defendants.

No. 5:21-CV-0915 (DNH/ML)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 16, 2021

ABRAHAM S. ISRAEL Pro se Plaintiff.

ORDER AND REPORT-RECOMMENDATION

MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge.

The Clerk has sent this pro se Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) filed by Bishop Abraham S. Israel (“Plaintiff”) to the Court for review. For the reasons discussed below, I grant Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (Dkt. No. 2) and recommend that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be (1) accepted in part for filing, and (2) dismissed (a) in part without leave to amend, and (b) in part with leave to amend.

1

I. BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff^[1] commenced this action by filing a Complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.)

Construed as liberally as possible, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's civil rights were violated by Defendants City of Syracuse, Sgt. Carleo, Sisley, Wolfe, Kimpel, Marcus DeBottis, Jr., Lago, and Ranette Releford (“Defendants”) during his interactions with them. (See generally Dkt. No. 1 [Compl.].)

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that on or about July 17, 2020, Plaintiff was at a mall in Syracuse, New York (“Destiny USA”) preaching the gospel, when Defendants Sisley and Wolfe approached him, escorted him to a private room, detained him for approximately twenty minutes, then escorted him out of Destiny USA and served him with an appearance ticket- which was ultimately dismissed. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that during this incident, Defendants Sisley and Wolfe took Plaintiff's passport, “papers, ” and $10.00, all without a warrant. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he reported this incident to the Citizen's Review Board (“CRB”), was contacted by Defendant Carleo for an in-person interview in August 2020, but that

2

Defendant Carleo failed to “rectify[] and safeguard[] Plaintiff's civil rights, ” and thus, “knowingly and unlawfully participated in the ‘racketeering activity.'” (Id. at 6-8.)

Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 2020, the Syracuse Police Department was summoned to 1409 South McBride Street, Syracuse, New York 13202, which is Plaintiff's church (“Jesus Christ Ministries”). (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kimpel responded, entered Jesus Christ Ministries without a warrant, searched and seized Plaintiff's sword, and then made Plaintiff and his wife, Natalia Israel, lock up and leave the premises. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that approximately one hour later, at an unidentified location, by an unidentified individual, Plaintiff was assaulted and suffered minor contusions to his face, a swollen, black eye, and was hospitalized. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he called the Syracuse Police Department, Defendant Kimpel again responded, Plaintiff reported to Defendant Kimpel who assaulted him, and Defendant Kimpel informed Plaintiff that a warrant would be issued for that person's arrest. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on December 14, 2020, he called the Syracuse Police Department and discovered that Defendant Kimpel wrote a false report for a missing person, instead of the assault on Plaintiff. (Id. at 9-10.)

Plaintiff alleges that on April 23, 2021, he and his wife were engaged in an alleged domestic dispute and Defendant DeBottis was the responding officer. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant DeBottis arrived on scene, Plaintiff was approximately one block away near his vehicle. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, without a warrant, Defendant DeBottis approached Plaintiff, placed him under arrest, placed handcuffs on him, seized his personal possessions-including his passport, papers, and identification-and took him to jail based on unsubstantiated allegations. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he spent seventeen days in jail as a result of this incident. (Id.)

3

Plaintiff alleges that on August 12, 2021, he called the police because his wife threatened to shoot him at Jesus Christ Ministries. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lago responded to the call and when he arrived, Plaintiff was alone. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he signed an accusatory instrument against his wife and indicated that he wanted to press charges against her. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lago informed him that a warrant would be issued for Ms. Israel's arrest. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after praying, he changed his mind about pressing charges, so he called the Syracuse Police Department and was informed that there was “no trace of his accusatory instrument he had signed and there was no record of a complaint.” (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that on July 27, 2020, he submitted a complaint to the CRB about the unlawful conduct of Defendants Sisley and Wolfe at Destiny USA on July 17, 2020, and that on December 23, 2020, he submitted a complaint to the CRB about the unlawful conduct of Defendant Kimpel on December 13, 2020. (Id. at 12.) However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Releford, the CRB administrator, has failed to provide him with any recourse or means to address the unlawful conduct. (Id. at 12.)

Based on these factual allegations, the Complaint appears to assert the following twenty causes of action: (1) a claim against Defendants pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 96; (2) a claim against Defendant City of Syracuse for dereliction of duty pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 892; (3) a claim against Defendant City of Syracuse for law enforcement misconduct pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a); (4) a claim against Defendants for harassment in the second degree pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 240.26(3); (5) a claim against Defendants for unlawful imprisonment pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 135.05; (6) a claim against Defendants for menacing in the second degree pursuant to

4

N.Y. Penal Law § 120.14(1); (7) a claim against Defendants for robbery in the second degree pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 160.10(1); (8) a claim against Defendants for criminal tampering in the third degree pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 145.14; (9) a claim against Defendants for kidnapping in the first degree pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 135.25(1); (10) a claim against Defendants for disruption or disturbance of religious service, funeral, burial, or memorial service, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 240.21; (11) a claim that Plaintiff's right to equal protection of the laws was violated by Defendants pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (12) a claim that Defendants Carleo, Sisley, and Wolfe violated Plaintiff's rights of free speech and freedom of religion pursuant to the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to the incident on July 17, 2020; (13) a claim of false arrest against Defendants Sisley, Wolfe, and Carleo in violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to the incident on July 17, 2020; (14) a claim of illegal search and seizure against Defendants Sisley, Wolfe, and Carleo in violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to the incident on July 17, 2020; (15) a claim of negligence against Defendant Carleo for “failure to deny [P]aintiff the relief of rectifying and safeguarding [P]laintiff's civil right[s]” after Plaintiff filed a CRB complaint regarding the incident that occurred at Destiny USA on July 17, 2020; (16) a claim of illegal search and seizure against Defendant Kimpel pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to the incident on December 13, 2020; (17) a claim that Defendant Kimpel failed to protect Plaintiff as a victim of a crime related to the incident on December 13, 2020; (18) a claim of false arrest against Defendant DeBottis pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to the incident on April 23, 2021; (19) a claim of illegal search and seizure against Defendant DeBottis pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to the incident on April 23, 2021; and (20) a claim of negligence

5

against Defendant Releford for failing to provide Plaintiff “recourse” regarding his CRB complaints. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the City of Syracuse prohibiting any “future Dereliction of Duty” and $3, 120, 000.00 in damages. (Id.)

II. PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

“When a civil action is commenced in a federal district court, the statutory filing fee, currently set at $402, must ordinarily be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court is authorized, however, to permit a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis status if a party “is unable to pay” the standard fee for commencing an action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).^[2] After reviewing Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (Dkt. No. 2), the Court finds that Plaintiff meets this standard. Therefore, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.^[3]

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INITIAL REVIEW OF COMPLAINT

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain, inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

6

...