JIe Yin v. NFTA

• Decision Date: 19 May 2016
• Docket Number: 1:11-CV-00780 EAW
• Parties: Jie Yin, Plaintiff, v. NFTA and NFTA Police Officer Victor Alvarado, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

188 F.Supp.3d 259

Jie Yin, Plaintiff,

v.NFTA and NFTA Police Officer Victor Alvarado, Defendants.

1:11-CV-00780 EAW

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

Signed May 19, 2016

Anna Marie Richmond, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.

Vicky-Marie Brunette, Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

This case involves an attempted bus trip from Buffalo to Niagara Falls that went awry over a 55 cent fare dispute, and according to the plaintiff, ended up with a serious violation of her constitutional rights. Plaintiff Jie Yin ("Plaintiff"), represented by counsel, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority ("NFTA") and NFTA Police Officer Victor Alvarado (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff contends that her efforts to travel from Buffalo to Niagara Falls by bus on September 22, 2008, were abruptly thwarted when Officer Alvarado violently and forcibly removed her from an NFTA bus following a fare dispute and then proceeded to unlawfully detain Plaintiff at the bus terminal.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 53). Because there are disputed issues of material fact with respect to Plaintiff's excessive use of force and unlawful seizure/detention claims asserted against Officer Alvarado pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to Officer Alvarado. On the other hand, this record does not support Plaintiff's allegations that NFTA maintains an unlawful policy of permitting its employee officers to engage in excessive uses of force without repercussion, and therefore, summary judgment is warranted in favor of NFTA.

PROCUDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff commenced this action pro se , seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the "NFTA Police," "NFTA Police Department," and "NFTA" (Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority). (Dkt. 1). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on September 16, 2011, dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the NFTA Police and Police Department with prejudice, granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint against the unnamed NFTA Police Officer, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint against NFTA setting forth the actions of the NFTA Police Officer that were allegedly performed pursuant to a policy or custom of the NFTA. (Dkt. 4).

On October 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against NFTA, "John Doe (NFTA Police Badge No. 50)," and "John Doe 2 (NFTA Driver of Bus No. 40)." (Dkt. 5). Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 21, 2011 (Dkt. 6), and a third amended complaint on November 16, 2011 (Dkt. 7). On May 10, 2012, the Court deemed the Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint together as the operative pleading in this matter. (Dkt. 8 at 2). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act with prejudice, and also dismissed claims against Defendant John Doe 2 with prejudice. (Id. at 9). Additionally, the Court directed NFTA to provide the name of the John Doe Police Officer and ordered that Plaintiff's complaint be amended to reflect the proper name of the John Doe Defendant. (Id. ). On June 6, 2012, NFTA identified NFTA Police Officer Victor Alvarado as the John Doe Defendant.

Defendant NFTA filed an answer on June 25, 2012 (Dkt. 9), and Defendant Alvarado filed an answer on November 30, 2012 (Dkt. 22). The case proceeded to discovery under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio. (Dkt. 21).

On January 30, 2015, the case was transferred to the undersigned. (Dkt. 36). After two status conferences before the Court, Plaintiff's counsel orally moved to withdraw as counsel from the case. (Dkt. 40). On April 21, 2015, the Court granted that motion and stayed discovery while Plaintiff sought new counsel. (Dkt. 41). On June 25, 2015, the Court lifted the stay of discovery and set deadlines for discovery and the filing of dispositive motions, to be completed under the supervision of the undersigned. (Dkt. 44).

On October 22, 2015, the Court appointed Anna Marie Richmond, Esq. to represent Plaintiff pro bono in this case at Plaintiff's and Ms. Richmond's request. (Dkt. 47). The parties engaged in additional discovery (Dkt. 50, 52), and on February 1, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 53). Plaintiff responded to the motion on February 22, 2016 (Dkt. 59), Defendants filed their reply papers on February 29, 2016 (Dkt. 67), and on April 5, 2016, the Court held oral argument on the motion (Dkt. 58).

Following the oral argument on April 5, 2016, the Court granted the parties an opportunity to submit letters citing to relevant case law on the issue of NFTA's Monell liability. Each party further addressed the issue in letters dated April 11, 2016, and April 12, 2016, at which time the Court took the motion for summary judgment under advisement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff lives in Buffalo, New York. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 1; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 1). Defendant NTFA is a public benefit corporation existing under New York State law. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 3; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 3). Defendant Victor Alvarado had been an NFTA Police Officer for approximately 29 years employed as a Patrolman as of September 22, 2009. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 4; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 4).

On September 22, 2008, Plaintiff intended to travel from Buffalo to Niagara Falls by bus. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 21; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 21). She was traveling alone and had several items with her, including a bag, a jacket, and her walker. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 25; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 25). Plaintiff had used NFTA Metro buses many times before September 22, 2008. (Dkt. 54 at ¶¶ 2, 22; Dkt. 59 at ¶¶ 2, 22). Plaintiff took an NFTA bus from her home in Buffalo to the main bus station in downtown Buffalo, at the corner of Ellicott and North Division streets. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 23; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 23). For this portion of her trip, Plaintiff paid with quarters and received a transfer. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 24; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 24). The fare to travel from downtown Buffalo to Niagara Falls was 45 cents. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 26; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 26). Plaintiff claims that she was not aware of the amount of the additional charge associated with the transfer until she boarded the Number 40 bus at the downtown Buffalo bus station. (Dkt. 59 at ¶ 26). To pay the 45 cent fare, Plaintiff fed a paper dollar bill into the fare box. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 27; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 27). Plaintiff contends she asked the driver if a one dollar bill was okay, and was instructed to "put it in." (Dkt. 59 at ¶ 27).

While Plaintiff was paying her fare, there were passengers already on the bus, and three or four passengers standing outside of the bus behind her. (Dkt. 54 at ¶¶ 28-29; Dkt. 59 at ¶¶ 28-29). After she put her dollar bill in the fare box, Plaintiff thought that the fare box would dispense 55 cents in change. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 30; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 30). The bus driver told Plaintiff that the fare box did not dispense change. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 31; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 31). Plaintiff claims that she "politely" asked the driver how to make change come out of the machine, and that the driver said "very loudly no change," repeated the words "no change" twice, and laughed at her. (Dkt. 59 at ¶ 31). Plaintiff estimates that she was speaking to the bus driver about the request for change for not more than three minutes. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 32; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 32).

The bus driver called for assistance from the NFTA Transit Police, claiming that Plaintiff was harassing and screaming at him, and indicating that he did not want Plaintiff to ride his bus. (Dkt. 54 at ¶¶ 33-34; Dkt. 59 at ¶¶ 33-34). Plaintiff denies that she was screaming, and claims that the driver yelled at her. (Dkt. 59 at ¶ 34).

Defendant Alvarado was assigned to the main bus station on September 22, 2009. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 35; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 35). As a Patrolman for the NFTA Police Department, Defendant Alvarado received various training including academy training, use of force training, Dale Carnegie training, a sensitivity program for dealing with passengers and the public, and other training. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 37; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 37). Defendant Alvarado responded to the call at bus number 40. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 39; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 39). It took Defendant Alvarado approximately 30 seconds to get from his office to Gate 14, where Plaintiff's bus was located, to investigate the fare dispute. (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 41; Dkt. 59 at ¶ 41).

Defendant Alvarado claims that when he arrived at the scene, Plaintiff was standing next to the bus driver and looked "a little irate." (Dkt. 54 at ¶ 42). He asked the bus driver what was going on, and the bus driver stated that Plaintiff had put extra money into the cashbox and was demanding that she get her change back. (Id. at ¶¶ 43-45). According to Defendant Alvarado, he explained to Plaintiff that the bus driver did not have keys to get into the box to provide change. (Id. at ¶ 48).

Plaintiff disputes that she was irate with the bus driver. (Dkt. 59 at ¶ 42). She claims she told the bus driver that she was disabled and entitled to a reduced fare, and that the bus driver laughing at her was "not a good way to do business." (Id. ). Plaintiff alleges that she had "given up, concluding that she was not going to get her change, and had decided to take a seat," when Defendant Alvarado arrived at the scene. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-44). Plaintiff contends Defendant Alvarado and the bus driver did not have a conversation in front of her, but rather, Defendant Alvarado told Plaintiff it was her fault that she had overpaid and ordered her to leave the bus. (Id. at ¶ 44). Plaintiff also disputes that Defendant Alvarado ever tried to explain the situation to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 48).

Defendant Alvarado claims that there were several people waiting to board the bus, and that people outside of the bus stated they were going to be late for...