Lloyd v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2017
• Docket Number: 1:14–cv–9968–GHW
• Citation: 246 F.Supp.3d 704
• Parties: Alyssa LLOYD, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Police Department Officers Gregory Graves, James Rufle, David Mills, Paul Byrne, and Undercover Officer 137, and, Corizon Health, Inc., Mohammad Alam, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

246 F.Supp.3d 704

Alyssa LLOYD, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Police Department Officers Gregory Graves, James Rufle, David Mills, Paul Byrne, and Undercover Officer 137, and, Corizon Health, Inc., Mohammad Alam, Defendants.

1:14–cv–9968–GHW

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

Signed March 31, 2017

Robert Thomas Perry, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

Elissa Beth Jacobs, New York City Law Department, David Rosen, Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, New York, NY, Ana Maria Vizzo, John Charles O'Brien, Jr., Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

Ms. Alyssa Lloyd worked for a number of years coordinating appointments for escorts. She asserts that the liaisons that she arranged were not sexual, but nonetheless, she was caught up in an undercover sting targeting suspected prostitution in her workplace. The officers who rushed in to arrest her and others did not know at first that Ms. Lloyd was a recovering breast cancer survivor. They did not know when they pushed her to the ground that her breasts had recently been removed, and that her surgical breast reconstruction had not healed and was fragile. Ms. Lloyd says that the officers did know those facts, however, when they handcuffed her behind her back, tearing the stitches in her chest. In this case, Ms. Lloyd brings a claim of excessive force against the officers who pushed her to the ground and handcuffed her. She also claims that the officers, and the doctor who later evaluated her in jail, were indifferent to her medical needs. Because there are disputed issues of fact regarding the circumstances of her arrest and the officers' handcuffing of Plaintiff, the officers' motion for summary judgment for her claims of excessive force are denied. Ms. Lloyd's constitutional claims related to deliberate indifference to her medical needs, however, are dismissed, principally because the officers offered her treatment after her arrest which she declined.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

1. Ms. Lloyd's Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Plaintiff, Ms. Alyssa Lloyd, worked "arranging dates" for women who advertised their services as escorts—booking appointments by telephone. At the time of the events in this case, she was in her early 40s. She had arrived at her job as a liaison between escorts and their customers after a long path, dropping out of New York University, taking massage classes, and working for some time as a nanny in Westchester.

Ms. Lloyd's life changed in August 2012, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Plaintiff's Response to Medical Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. No. 111) ("Pl. Med. 56.1") ¶¶ 88–90. After her diagnosis in late 2012, Ms. Lloyd was treated with chemotherapy, which significantly improved her condition. Id. ¶¶ 91–92. However, in order to treat her cancer, Ms. Lloyd also decided to undergo a double mastectomy—surgical removal of both of her breasts. Id. ¶ 96.

In the early summer of 2013, with her mastectomy approaching, Ms. Lloyd began to consult with a plastic surgeon about options to reconstruct her breasts. On June 6, 2013, Ms. Lloyd met for the first time with her plastic surgeon, Dr. Cherry Chang, M.D. Id. ¶¶ 93, 96. After conferring with Dr. Chang, Ms. Lloyd decided to reconstruct her breasts immediately after their removal, using surgically-implanted breast expanders which would be inflated through injections of saline. Id. ¶¶ 101, 112. Breast implantation, like any surgery, comes with risks. And Dr. Chang reviewed the risks associated with breast reconstruction generally, and particularly the issues associated with breast implants. The risks were significant: infection, wound healing issues, unfavorable scarring, asymmetry, implant failure, and the possibility of requiring future corrective surgery, among others. Id. ¶¶ 103–06. Because Ms. Lloyd would also need radiation therapy even after the mastectomy, she was at risk for still further complications. Id. ¶ 107.

Ms. Lloyd's breasts were removed during an operation on June 17, 2013. Id. ¶ 108. During the same surgery, Dr. Chang inserted two tissue expanders and implants into her breasts—the first of many steps in Plaintiff's breast reconstruction. Id. ¶ 109. The next step—inflation of the tissue expanders using saline injections—began in July 2013 and continued through September 2013. Id. ¶¶ 112–137. Unfortunately, early in her treatment, Ms. Lloyd began to experience complications from the procedure. Beginning in early August 2013, Plaintiff began to complain that saline was leaking from her right tissue expander. Id. ¶ 114. Dr. Chang reacted promptly; in a surgical procedure on August 23, he removed Ms. Lloyd's right implant and exchanged her right tissue expander. Id. ¶¶ 129–30.

Following the surgery, Ms. Lloyd was allowed to exercise "a little." Plaintiff's Response to City Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl. City 56.1") ¶ 218. But the repair proved fragile. In mid–September, the stitches in Ms. Lloyd's chest ripped while she was making her bed, doing nothing more than stretching her arm to spread a comforter. Pl. City 56.1 ¶ 219. Sticky, salty fluid that Ms. Lloyd believed to be saline leaked from the wound, irritating her skin. Id. ¶ 220.

So only four weeks after the replacement of her right expander, on September 17, Plaintiff was back in Dr. Chang's office. Pl. Med. 56.1 ¶ 138. That very morning, Plaintiff had noticed some leakage from her right breast incision. Id. ¶ 139. During her visit, Dr. Chang found that some of Ms. Lloyd's sutures were coming apart, and, perhaps, some leakage. Dr. Chang sutured the incision closed. Id. ¶ 140. He also prescribed Cefadroxil, an antibiotic. Ms. Lloyd was directed to take two pills of the medication per day over the course of one week. Id. ¶¶ 142–43.

But the problems did not end. Ms. Lloyd returned to Dr. Chang's office two days later, on September 19, 2013, again reporting persistent saline leakage. Id. ¶ 144–45. Dr. Chang decided that an operation was necessary to again replace Ms. Lloyd's right tissue expander. Id. ¶ 146. He scheduled the surgery to take place four days later—September 23, 2013. Id. ¶ 149. Ms. Lloyd would not make it to her surgery that day. Instead, because of the events that unfolded next, she would be on Rikers Island.

2. The Events of September 20, 2013

a. Plaintiff's Arrest

Detective James Rufle worked for the New York City Police Department Vice Major Case Squad. As its name suggests, the squad targets prostitution and vice- related crimes. In September 2013, Detective Rufle was investigating Ms. Lloyd and the business where she worked at 408 East 64th Street in Manhattan. Pl. City. 56.1 ¶¶ 1–2. As described above, Ms. Lloyd worked as a liaison, connecting men and women who, occasionally, met at her workplace. The police suspected that Ms. Lloyd was running a website that was promoting prostitution. Id. ¶ 3. On September 20, 2013, the police organized a "buy and bust" tactical operation at Ms. Lloyd's place of work. The team assembled for the operation included Detective Rufle, together with Detectives Paul Byrne and David Mills, Sergeant Gregory Graves, and one undercover officer—known here only by his codename, UC 137. Id. ¶¶ 4–5.²

Early in the operation, UC 137 called Ms. Lloyd using a number provided by Detective Rufle. Id. ¶ 11. The parties dispute whether UC 137 and Plaintiff discussed exchanging sex for money, or whether they merely discussed a paid arrangement for non-sexual companionship. It is undisputed, however, that Ms. Lloyd made an appointment for UC 137 to meet with a woman in the apartment on East 64th Street where Ms. Lloyd worked the phones. Id. ¶ 12.

A short time later, UC 137 arrived at the apartment. Ms. Lloyd let him in. Id. ¶ 14. Soon thereafter, UC 137 signaled to the other members of the field team, likely by text message, that there was an agreement to exchange sex for money, although as noted, Plaintiff disputes that she ever entered into any such an agreement. Id. ¶ 16.

Triggered by UC 137's signal, a number of officers entered the apartment to secure the undercover officer and make their arrests. How the police entered the apartment, and what they did upon entry are the subject of material dispute. The officers take the position that they knocked on the door, announced that they were police, and made numerous requests that the tenants of the apartment open the door. Because no one opened the door voluntarily, the officers forcibly breached the door using a ram. Id. ¶¶ 18–20. As Sergeant Graves testified at his deposition "whoever was behind the door, refused to open.... We heard movement inside. At that point our undercover's safety was in question" so he "instructed Detective Mills" to "breach the door" with a heavy breaching ram. Deposition of Gregory Graves, annexed as Ex. C to Jacobs Decl., at 37:24–38:6.

Ms. Lloyd, on the other hand, asserts that the ramming began immediately, at the same time police announced themselves. In her version of events, Ms. Lloyd told the officers repeatedly that she would open the door if they would only stop ramming it. But the officers continued to ram the door until it broke. Pl. City 56.1 ¶¶ 19–20. Ms. Lloyd's account is supported by her deposition testimony. There, she testified that she went to open the door to the apartment, and that "right before I opened the door, the door slammed, and they said, this is the police." Deposition of Alyssa Lloyd, annexed as Ex. A to Declaration of Elissa B. Jacobs (Dkt. No. 87) at 141:15–17. "They took the ram and they smashed the door" but Ms. Lloyd "kept saying, listen, I'm behind the door, there's not—not much room, if you want me to open it, you need to stop slamming the door." Id. at 141:22–142:2.

As much as the parties dispute how the officers entered the apartment, they disagree about what happened afterward—particularly about where Ms. Lloyd and the undercover...