Magassouba v. Cascione, Purcigliotti & Galluzzi, P.C.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20 Civ. 10996 (PAE) (BCM) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
| Parties | MOUSTAPHA MAGASSOUBA, Plaintiff, v. CASCIONE, PURCIGLIOTTI & GALLUZZI, P.C., et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Moustapha Magassouba ("Magassouba"), proceeding pro se, alleges that his former counsel, the firm of Cascione, Purcigliotti & Galluzzi, P.C. (the "Firm" or "Cascione") and each of the Firm's attorneys (together, "defendants") committed legal malpractice and violated his constitutional rights in their representation of him in a 2003 state court action in New York Supreme Court. Magassouba alleges that defendants failed to timely file his action, failed to file his case in federal court, misled him about the reasons why certain claims had been dismissed, withheld documents until after his time to appeal expired, and misled him to accept a settlement with certain defendants. Magassouba brought essentially the same claims in a 2018 state court action against defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and on the grounds that all of Magassouba's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and by res judicata.
On June 14, 2021, the Honorable Barbara Moses filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant defendants' motion and deny Magassouba leave to further amend. See Dkt. 24 (the "Report"). For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full, with a minor modification to the statement of facts.
1. Magassouba's Arrest and Criminal Charges
On August 1, 2000, Magassouba was arrested, pursuant to a warrant, at his home in Bronx County, New York, by New York City Police Department ("NYPD") the United States Postal Service, and the Financial Crimes Task Force of Southwestern Pennsylvania (the "Task Force"). Am Compl. at 5; see also Dkt. 15 ("Def. Mot."), Exs. 1, 3, 10 ("2003 Order"). In support of the arrest warrant, Detective Todd Moses, a Task Force Member, submitted an affidavit. See 2003 Order at 2-3. On November 3, 2000, Magassouba was extradited to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Id. On November 28, 2000, immigration officials lodged an immigration detainer against Magassouba, who is a citizen of Guinea, West Africa. Id., ; Am. Compl. at 2.
Magassouba was charged with "corrupt organizations," "conspiracy," "unlawful use of computer," "forgery," and "theft by deception," but, on July 17, 2002, the charges were dismissed. Def. Mot. Ex. 4 ¶16; see also PI. Opp'n, Ex. 1. Magassouba alleges, however, that he was not ordered released from immigration custody until July 31, 2002 and not actually released until August 1, 2002. See Am. Compl. at 5; see also Def. Mot., Ex, 3 at 1 (); id., Ex. 4 ("2003 State Ct. Compl") ¶¶ 17-18.
On or about August 7, 2002, Magassouba contacted defendants about filing suit against the parties involved in his August 2000 arrest. Am. Compl. at 5. The Firm agreed to represent him. Id. On August 15, 2002, Magassouba served a Notice of Claim on the Comptroller of the City of New York, advising that he intended to commence an action and would seek damages of $10 million. See Def. Mot., Ex. 3, at 1-2.
On My 30, 2003, the Firm filed the 2003 State Court Action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County against the City, the NYPD Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., and Detective Moses. See Magassouba v. City of New York, et al, Index No. 21963-03 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty.). Magassouba alleged that, on August 1, 2000, the state defendants "negligently, wrongfully, willfully, maliciously, and with gross negligence physically detained, falsely arrested and forcefully took plaintiff from his home," 2003 State Ct. Compl. ¶ 12, and between August 1, 2000 until August 1, 2002-the date of his release from immigration detention-falsely imprisoned him, see Id. ¶ 17. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and a state law claim for false arrest and wrongful imprisonment. Id. ¶¶ 19-28.
On August 12, 2003, in an unrelated criminal indictment, Magassouba was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin. See Def. Mot., Ex. 5. Magassouba remained in custody through trial, which concluded on November 6, 2009, with a guilty verdict. Id. at 4. Magassouba was sentenced to time served and released subject to any immigration detainer. United States v. Magassouba, No. 03 Cr. 985 (RPP), Dkt. 107 (Nov. 25, 2009).
On March 30, 2005, Justice Gonzalez dismissed all of Magassouba's claims against D.A. Zappala in the 2003 State Court Action. See Def. Mot., Ex. 6, at 2; PI, Opp., Ex. 5. Magassouba objects that the Report's description of the dismissal of these claims misconstrues the state court's language. Dkt. 29 ("Objections") at 6. However, the Report's description is accurate. The state court concluded that the complaint failed to plead facts to support personal jurisdiction over Zappala in New York, but pled sufficient facts to support personal jurisdiction over Detective Moses, Def. Mot., Ex. 6 at 2-3. The court also dismissed the federal civil rights claim against the other state defendants because "[a] complaint containing only conclusory, vague and general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand a dismissal motion." Id. at 2 (quoting Ford v. Snashall, 285 A.D.2d 881, 882 (3d Dep't 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted)), On August 5, 2008 Magassouba-through the Firm- accepted a $4, 200 settlement with the City and the NYPD. See Am. Compl. at 6; Def. Mot., Ex. 9 at 1 n.l; PI. Opp'n, Ex. 8 ¶7.
On December 15, 2008, with Magassouba having accused his lawyers of, inter alia, colluding with opposing counsel and misappropriation of funds, the Firm moved to be relieved as his counsel, averring that there was "no longer any level of trust" between attorney and client. PI. Opp'n, Ex. 8 ¶ 7 (). On January 12, 2009, Justice Guzman granted the withdrawal motion. See Def, Mot., Ex. 8. Magassouba objects to this description in the Report, claiming that the withdrawal order was achieved through "exploitation of unlawful acts" and that defendants "lie[d] and sabotage[d]" his 2003 State Court Action. Objections at 7. But regardless of the veracity of defendants' claims in support of their motion to withdraw, the record is clear that the state court permitted defendants to withdraw as counsel on January 12, 2009.
On November 27, 2012, the court dismissed the remaining claims in the 2003 State Court Action for failure to prosecute. See Def. Mot., Ex. 9. On April 25, 2013, in response to a motion from Magassouba explaining that his failure to prosecute had been the result of his incarceration between August 11, 2003 and June 1, 2012, Justice Guzman vacated the November 27, 2012 order, and restored the 2003 State Court Action to the calendar. Id. at 1-2.
On June 2, 2015, Justice Guzman granted summary judgment in favor of Detective Moses, the only remaining defendant. 2003 Order at 2-3. Justice Guzman concluded that the false arrest and false imprisonment claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. See Id. Justice Guzman also concluded that Magassouba had been released from immigration custody on April 18, 2002, not, as he represented in the 2003 State Court Complaint, on August 1, 2002. Id. at 3. Accordingly, the statute of limitations expired on April 18, 2003-more than three months before Magassouba filed the 2003 State Court Complaint. Id. Justice Guzman further held that there had been probable cause to arrest Magassouba, which operates as a complete defense to false arrest and false imprisonment. Id. Justice Guzman held that the arrest warrant was "presumed reliable" and that Magassouba had "failed to submit any facts other than speculation that the [underlying] affidavit of Det. Moses was based upon any 'materially impeaching circumstances or grounds for questioning the complainant[']s credibility.'" Id. (quoting Medina v. City of New York, 102 A.D.3d 101, 104 (1st Dep't 2012)). Magassouba disputes that Medina is applicable to his case. Objections at 8. But Magassouba's objections to the state court's conclusions are properly directed to the state court and are not reviewable by this Court. See Brady v. IGS Realty Co. LP., No. 19 Civ. 10142 (PAE), 2020 WL 5414683, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2020) (under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, among federal courts, only the Supreme Court may review state court decisions; federal courts may not conduct collateral attacks on state-court judgments.).
3. 2018 State Court Action
On April 2, 2018, Magassouba filed the 2018 State Court Action against the Firm, Thomas Gerard Cascione, Michael J, Galluzzi, Kelly Lynne Murtha, and Robert A. Purcigliotti. See Magassouba v. Cascione, Purcigliotti & Galluzzi, P.C., Index No. 100452-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty.); see also Def. Mot., Ex. 11 ("2018 State Ct. CompL"). The 2018 State Court Complaint alleged that defendants: (1) missed the deadline to file the 2003 State Court Action, allowing the statute of limitations on certain claims to expire, see 2018 State Ct. Compl. ¶¶ 14-16; (2) failed to file the 2003 State Court Complaint in federal court, see Id. ¶¶17-18; (3) misled or lied to Magassouba to accept a settlement offer from the City and the NYPD, see Id. ¶¶ 19-21; and (4) breached their attorney-client agreement by withdrawing as counsel, see Id. ¶¶22-25. Magassouba brought claims for violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, id. ¶¶ 26-29, and for legal malpractice, id. ¶¶ 30-33.
On December 14, 2018, Justice Hagler dismissed the 2018 State...
To continue reading
Request your trial