Johnson v. O'Connel
| Decision Date | 17 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | 15-CV-2288 (NSR) |
| Parties | DAYNA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. POSTAL INSPECTOR DENNIS O'CONNEL; AND "ANNA (JANE DOE)," POST INSPECTOR, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Dayna Johnson ("Plaintiff"), a pro se litigant and former Postal Service employee, brings this action against Postal Inspector Dennis O'Connell ("Defendant") in his individual capacity under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971) which allows a cause of action for damages against federal agents who have allegedly violated the Fourth Amendment. (See Amended Complaint, ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable for violating her constitutional rights in connection with investigating the armed robbery of a Postal Service facility in August 2013. (See id.) Plaintiff raises claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and unlawful search and seizure, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a claim of cruel and unusual punishment, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (See id. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks $10 million in punitive damages and $10 million in compensatory damages. (Id. at 4.)
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion for Summary Judgment, ("Defendant's Motion"), ECF No. 55.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
The facts are taken from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements, affidavits, declarations, and exhibits, and are not in dispute except where so noted. All rational inferences are drawn in Plaintiff's favor.
On August 5, 2013, a masked individual carrying a handgun robbed the United States Post Office at 335 South Broadway in Yonkers, New York. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No.59; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 51.) The parties dispute exactly what happened during the robbery. According to Defendant, the gunman assaulted a contractor and escaped with $26,000. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 3-4; O'Connell Decl., ECF No. 57 ¶ 2.) According to Plaintiff, "[a]fter the robber entered the United States Post Office ... he directed Plaintiff and her coworkers into the Post Office's safe," where "Plaintiff was unable to see anything that the robber did in the Post Office." (Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 3.) Defendant and Plaintiff were both present and working on the day of the robbery. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 5-6; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶¶ 5-6.) After the robbery, Defendant was assigned to investigate and look into the incident. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 5; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 5.)1
On June 11, 2014, about ten months after the robbery, two postal inspectors, Maliako and Escoto, approached Plaintiff at work and took her to a conference room at the Postal Service's mail processing and distribution center. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 7-9; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶¶ 7-9.) They then questioned Plaintiff about the robbery. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 10; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 10.) Before the questioning, Plaintiff signed a document reflecting that she was voluntarily waiving her Miranda Rights. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 11; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 11; Declaration of Jeanette Vargas, ("Vargas Decl."), Ex. B. ECF No. 58.) Before signing this document, Plaintiff claims that Maliako and Escoto never told her that "there would be no negative repercussions if she told them to leave her alone[,]" and that she was told that signing the document would "make her feel comfortable." (Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 11). The waiver also reflected that she was "willing to discuss subjects presented and answer questions," and that "no promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 11; Vargas Decl., Ex. B, ("Miranda Waiver."))
The parties dispute Defendant's role during the interview. Defendant claims that he was near the conference room where the interview took place, but did not enter the room during the interview, observe the interview, or otherwise participate in it; rather he just received periodic updates. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 13-14). According to Plaintiff, Defendant travelled to the interview after his "individual interrogation" was unsuccessful, positioned himself near the interview room, "solicited" updates about the interview, and provided advice to those involved in the interview via email. (Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff also claims that Defendant twice observed Escoto escort Plaintiff to the bathroom. (Id.)
The parties also dispute what happened in the interview room. Defendant claims that he "heard no yelling nor observed anything that would indicate there was anything unlawful aboutthe interview." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 16.) He adds that during the interview, Plaintiff admitted that, prior to the robbery, an individual identified as CA-2, approached her with questions about the Yonkers Post Office's security cameras, the times when there would be a lot of money at the facility, when the trucks arrived, and how many people were present at different times. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff supposedly also told the interviewers that she understood that CA-2 was asking these questions because he was considering robbing the Post Office, and that she "asked him not to do it." (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff supposedly further revealed that a few months after CA-2 first asked her about the Post Office, he again approached her with the same questions, at which point she answered that it would be better to go inside the facility to commit the robbery. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 19-20.) She allegedly told the inspectors that she again asked CA-2 not to commit the robbery but that if he did go through with it, "not to go inside" the facility because Plaintiff "didn't want her co-workers to get hurt." (Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 21). Instead, she advised CA-2 to commit the robbery "on the loading dock" of the facility. (Id. ¶ 22.)2
Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant's account of the questions asked or the answers she gave; rather, Plaintiff claims that other "elements of the interrogation were unlawful." (Id. ¶ 16.) For example, she claims that during the interrogations, she was forced to leave her cell phone at the table and could not answer the calls she was getting. (Id.) She claims she was allowed to go to the bathroom only twice over seven hours, and that when she left to go to the bathroom, she was forced to leave her phone in the room and was followed by Escoto both times, even though she asked Escoto not to accompany her. (Id.)3 She also claims that she was prohibited from eating ordrinking during the questioning and that when the interview ended, she was "forced to write a statement" that Defendant made her modify multiple times because it was "too weak." (Id.)
On June 16, 2014, five days after Plaintiff was first interviewed in connection with the August 5th robbery, Defendant learned that Plaintiff left her job with the Postal Service. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 23; Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶ 23.) Defendant claims that, at this point, because the AUSA investigating the robbery was concerned that Plaintiff could pose a flight risk, he instructed Defendant to arrest her immediately. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 24.) Thereafter, Inspectors and a uniformed local police officer went to Plaintiff's apartment and placed her under arrest. (Id. ¶ 25.) During the arrest, they directed Plaintiff to sit in a chair in the middle of her living room while the arresting team members conducted a protective sweep of the apartment to ensure that no other individuals were present. (Id. ¶ 26.) Defendant claims that this protective sweep lasted less than a minute and occurred because the arrest team had safety concerns regarding Plaintiff's apartment, since the CA-2 had used a handgun and had assaulted a Postal Service employee and because Plaintiff's boyfriend, CA-1, who was also being investigated for his involvement in the robbery, often stayed at the apartment. (Id. ¶¶ 28-30.) The arrest team also searched Plaintiff's closets in the living room and bedrooms. (Id.) Finally, Defendant claims that he requested consent to search Plaintiff's cellphone, which she refused, and consequently, he confiscated it as a potential source of evidence and because "prisoners are not allowed to maintain possession of a cellphone while in a holding cell." (Id. ¶¶ 31-33.)
Plaintiff paints a different picture of how the search and arrest on June 16 occurred. She claims that Defendant and a uniformed police officer arrived at her apartment at 3:30 pm on June 16, 2014, and when she opened the door, they "demand[ed] entry" and "barged in" without herpermission or a warrant. (Pl. Resp. to 56.1 ¶¶ 25-26.) She also claims that she has not received any notes about Defendant's placement at her door during this search or about who the supervising law enforcement officer was, let alone about her supposed consent. (Id.) She also states that Defendant never claims that he observed or heard Plaintiff consent to inspectors entering and searching her home. (Id.) As to the "protective sweep," Plaintiff claims that the total search of her apartment lasted for approximately 10 to 15 minutes and that she was required to change into "more appropriate clothing," which she had to do in front of Escoto. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Plaintiff also asserts that the request to search and confiscation of her cell phone happened prior to her "booking." (Id. ¶¶ 31-33.)
Plaintiff further adds that after being arrested, she was confined overnight and then brought to the courthouse, where she was told she "would have to give up [her] retirement money." (Am. Compl., Pl. Aff. ¶ J.) To be released, she then signed a bail package, which imposed numerous restrictions on her such as house arrest, restricted travel, supervision, and drug testing. (Id. ¶ K.) She claims that due to these conditions, she could not go outside, lost weight, and suffered from anxiety, depression, and mental anguish. (Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial