Jenkins v. Cnty. of Wash.

Decision Date27 August 2015
Docket NumberNo. 1:14–CV–0064 (GTS/RFT).,1:14–CV–0064 (GTS/RFT).
Parties Peddie JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. CNTY. OF WASHINGTON; Washington Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't; Jefferey Murphy, Washington Cnty. Sheriff, Individually; John Winchell, Washington Cnty. Undersheriff, Individually; Scott Stark, Washington Cnty. Sheriff's Deputy, Individually; Village of Hudson Falls ; Hudson Falls Police Dep't ; Randy Diamond, Hudson Falls Police Chief, Individually; Scott Gillis, Hudson Falls Police Officer, Individually; Scott Moulthrop, Hudson Falls Police Officer, Individually; City of Glens Falls; City of Glens Falls Police Dep't; William Valenza, Glens Falls Police Chief, Individually; Peter Casertino, Glens Falls Police Officer, Individually; Paul Fretteloso, Glenns Falls Police Officer, Individually; New York State Comm'r of Dep't of Corr. and Cmty. Supervision; Mario Torres, New York State Parole Officer, Individually; Scott Hurteau, New York State Parole Officer, Individually; Washington Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office; Kevin Kortright, Washington Cnty. Dist. Attorney, Individually; Devin Anderson, Washington Cnty. Assistant Dist. Attorney, Individually; and Michael Stern, Washington Cnty. Assistant Dist. Attorney, Individually, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

William E. Montgomery, III, Esq., William E. Montgomery, III, Esq., of Counsel, Glens Falls, NY, for Plaintiff.

Lemire Johnson, LLC, Gregg T. Johnson, Esq., April J. Laws, Esq., of Counsel, Malta, NY, for County Defendants.

Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati & Hurd, LLP, Judith B. Aumand, Esq., Thomas J. Mortati, Esq., of Counsel, Albany, NY, for Village Defendants.

Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., James A. Resila, Esq., William C. Firth, Esq., of Counsel, Albany, NY, for City Defendants.

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, Richard Lombardo, Esq., of Counsel, Albany, NY, for State Defendants.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.

Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Peddie Jenkins ("Plaintiff") against five village entities and employees ("Village Defendants"), five city entities and employees ("City Defendants"), nine county entities and employees ("County Defendants"), and a state entity and two state employees ("State Defendants"), are four motions: a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the Village Defendants (Dkt. No. 46); a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the City Defendants (Dkt. No. 41); a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by the County Defendants (Dkt. No. 33); and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by the State Defendants (Dkt. No. 44). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 259
A. Plaintiff's Claims 259
B. Parties' Briefing on Defendants' Motions 260
1. Parties' Briefing on Village Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 260
a. Village Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Chief 260
b. Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum of Law 261
c. Village Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law 262
2. Parties' Briefing on City Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 263
a. City Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Chief 263
b. Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum of Law 264
c. City Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law 264
3. Parties' Briefing on County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 265
a. County Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Chief 265
b. Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum of Law 266
c. County Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law 267
4. Parties' Briefing on State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 268
a. State Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Chief 268
b. Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum of Law 270
c. State Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law 271
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS 272
A. Legal Standards Governing a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 272
B. Legal Standards Governing Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants' Defenses 275
III. ANALYSIS 275
A. Analysis of Village Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 275
B. Analysis of City Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 277
C. Analysis of County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 278
D. Analysis of State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 280
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff's Claims

Generally, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights when, between January of 2012 and December of 2012 in Washington County, New York, they wrongfully investigated him, indicted him by grand jury, arrested him pursuant to a warrant, and prosecuted him for the crimes of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (of which he was acquitted at trial on December 6, 2012) based on his African–American race. (Dkt. No. 1.)

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges misconduct by five village entities and employees: the Village of Hudson Falls, the Hudson Falls Police Department, Hudson Falls Police Chief Randy Diamond, Hudson Falls Police Officer Scott Gillis, and Hudson Falls Police Officer Scott Moulthrop ("Village Defendants"). (Id. ) Moreover, he alleges misconduct by five city entities and employees: the City of Glens Falls, the Glens Falls Police Department, Glens Falls Police Chief William Valenza, Glens Falls Police Officer Peter Casertino, and Glens Falls Police Officer Paul Fretteloso ("City Defendants"). (Id. ) Furthermore, he alleges misconduct by nine county entities and employees: the County of Washington, the Washington County Sheriff's Department, Washington County Sheriff Jefferey Murphy, Washington County Undersheriff John Winchell, Washington County Sheriff's Deputy Scott Stark, Washington County District Attorney's Office, Washington County District Attorney Kevin Kortright, Washington County Assistant District Attorney Devin Anderson, and Washington County Assistant District Attorney Michael Stern ("County Defendants"). (Id. ) Finally, he alleges misconduct by a state entity and two state employees: the New York State Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, New York State Parole Officer Mario Torres, and New York State Parole Officer Scott Hurteau ("State Defendants"). (Id. )

Generally, based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts eight claims against these twenty-two Defendants. (Id. ) First, Plaintiff claims that Defendants intentionally or recklessly subjected him to unlawful arrest, wrongful confinement and imprisonment, unlawful strip searches, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, wrongful conviction and a conspiracy to cover-up the truth because of their racial animus toward him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Thirteenth Amendment. (Id. )

Second, Plaintiff claims that Defendants intentionally or recklessly subjected him to arrest, wrongful confinement and imprisonment, unlawful strip searches, unlawful assault and battery, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, wrongful conviction and a conspiracy to cover-up the truth because of their racial animus toward him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. )

Third, Plaintiff claims that Defendants conspired among and between themselves to deprive him of his rights to a fair trial, to access to the Courts, and to be free from excessive force, unnecessary force, unreasonable arrest and seizure, from wrongful confinement, imprisonment, conviction, and from malicious prosecution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. )

Fourth, Plaintiff claims that Defendants County of Washington and Washington County Sheriff's Department incurred municipal liability for the three above-described violations by (a) employing Defendant Murphy, who was the final decision maker with respect to matters involving the Washington County Sheriff's Department, and/or (b) having in effect certain policies, practices and customs that caused the three above-described violations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell. (Id. )

Fifth, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Village of Hudson Falls and Hudson Falls Village Police Department incurred municipal liability for the first three above-described violations by (a) employing Defendant Diamond, who was the final decision maker with respect to matters involving the Hudson Falls Police Department, and/or (b) having in effect certain policies, practices and customs that caused the three above-described violations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). (Id. )

Sixth, Plaintiff claims that Defendants City of Glens Falls and Glens Falls City Police Department incurred municipal liability for the first three above-described violations by (a) employing Defendant Valenza, who was the final decision maker with respect to matters involving the Glens Falls Police Department, and/or (b) having in effect certain policies, practices and customs that caused the three above-described violations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell. (Id. )

Seventh, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Washington County District Attorney's Office incurred municipal liability for the first three above-described violations by (a) employing Defendant Kortright, who was the final decision maker with respect to matters involving the Washington County District Attorney's Office, and/or (b) having in effect certain policies, practices and customs that caused the three above-described violations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell. (Id. )

Eighth, Plaintiff claims that, by the above-described actions, Defendants caused violations of New York State law, including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, assault and battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, conspiracy, and "violating the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Parker v. Blackerby
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • March 26, 2019
    ...allege facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of probable cause flowing from a grand jury indictment."); Jenkins v. Cty. of Washington, 126 F.Supp.3d 255, 278 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (conclusory allegation that defendant knowingly presented false evidence to grand jury insufficient to overcome p......
  • Mullahey v. Zurlo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • February 9, 2017
    ...See L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 421-22 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted); see also Jenkins v. County of Washington, 126 F. Supp. 3d 255, 274 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted).B. Deprivation of interests without due process In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that h......
  • Gilmore v. Bouboulis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • August 29, 2016
    ...any County policy, custom, or practice pursuant to which the alleged violations occurred. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Cty. of Washington, 126 F. Supp. 3d 255, 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (Suddaby, J.) (noting that plaintiff's allegation that individual defendants were policymaking officials "does not mea......
  • Winston v. City of Syracuse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • September 8, 2016
    ...also review "any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case." Jenkins v. Cnty of Washington , 126 F.Supp.3d 255, 274–75 (N.D.N.Y.2015).III. BACKGROUNDa. FactsThe City of Syracuse, New York ("the City") is a municipal corporation that is the sol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT