Matthews v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 05 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–CV–4991.,10–CV–4991.
• Citation: 889 F.Supp.2d 418
• Parties: Mkubwa MATTHEWS and Zambena Allan, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK; Police Officer Matthew T. Granahan, Shield No. 26635; Sergeant Louis Marino, Shield No. 1597; Police Officer Kenneth Miller, Shield No. 18242; Police Officer Vitali; and Police Officers John Doe and Richard Roe (names and shield numbers of whom are unknown at present, and other unidentified members of the New York City Police Department), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

889 F.Supp.2d 418

Mkubwa MATTHEWS and Zambena Allan, Plaintiffs,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK; Police Officer Matthew T. Granahan, Shield No. 26635; Sergeant Louis Marino, Shield No. 1597; Police Officer Kenneth Miller, Shield No. 18242; Police Officer Vitali; and Police Officers John Doe and Richard Roe (names and shield numbers of whom are unknown at present, and other unidentified members of the New York City Police Department), Defendants.

No. 10–CV–4991.

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

Sept. 5, 2012.

[889 F.Supp.2d 424]

David M. Hazan, Stuart E. Jacobs, Jacobs & Hazan, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Gregory P. Mouton, New York City Law Department, Benjamin E. Stockman, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, District Judge.

On October 29, 2010, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and New York law, Mkubwa Matthews and Zambena Allan (“plaintiffs”) filed this action against the City of New York (“the City”) and individual defendants Sergeant Louis Marino, Police Officers Matthew Granahan, Kenneth Miller, and Vitali, and two unidentified members of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), John Doe and Richard Roe (the “Individual Defendants,” together with the City, the “defendants”).

[889 F.Supp.2d 425]

Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims pursuant to Section 1983 against the Individual Defendants for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and failure to intervene, a Monell claim against the City for the same constitutional violations, and analogous claims under New York law. Presently before the court is defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant case law, for the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from plaintiffs' complaint ( see ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”)) and are accepted as true for the purposes of this motion, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving plaintiffs. LaFaro v. New York Cardiothoracic Group, PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475–76 (2d Cir.2009).

I. Statement of FactsA. The Assault of Plaintiff Allan

On December 20, 2007, Matthews and his younger brother Allan attended a birthday party at Secrets Restaurant Bar & Lounge (“Secrets”) in Kings County, New York. (Compl. ¶ 29.) Before entering Secrets at approximately 1:00 AM, both plaintiffs were frisked for weapons. ( Id. ¶¶ 29–30.) A few hours later, approximately fifteen unknown male patrons at Secrets robbed and attacked Allan, attempting to steal a gold chain worn around his neck. ( Id. ¶¶ 31–32.) The assailants brutally assaulted Allan, repeatedly kicking, stomping, and punching him. ( Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.) As a result of being badly beaten, Allan lost consciousness and defecated on himself, his eyes were swollen almost shut, his head was injured, and his nose and lips were bleeding. ( Id. ¶¶ 34–35.) Additionally, Allan had cuts on his chest and his shirt was ripped and had kick marks on it. ( Id. ¶ 35.)

During the assault, Matthews did not know that Allan was being attacked because the beating occurred in a different area of Secrets from where the birthday party was held. ( Id. ¶ 38.) After learning of the assault, Matthews came to Allan's assistance and asked whether he was okay. ( Id. ¶ 40.) Appearing dazed, Allan was unable to speak and was slipping in and out of consciousness. ( Id. ¶ 41.)

Three friends from the birthday party offered to drive plaintiffs a short distance to Kings County Hospital (the “Hospital”) in their vehicle, which the friends then drove to the entrance of Secrets to pick up the plaintiffs. ( Id. ¶¶ 42–43.) Matthews and one of the friends helped Allan to the vehicle because Allan had trouble walking without assistance due to his injuries. ( Id. ¶ 43.)

In the interim, the Individual Defendants had arrived at Secrets in response to 911 calls reporting that a group of individuals had assaulted a Secrets patron and, “upon information and belief,” that those individuals then fired gunshots into the air outside of the establishment. ( Id. ¶¶ 45–46.) Upon arrival, the Individual Defendants observed that Allan was a badly injured assault and robbery victim and that he had defecated on himself. ( Id. ¶ 48.) The Individual Defendants also observed Matthews assisting his injured brother into their friends' vehicle. ( Id. ¶ 49.) The Individual Defendants did not see a bulge that could have been a weapon in the waistband of Matthews' pants because his pants fit tightly and could not have concealed a weapon in the waistband. ( Id. ¶ 51.) Moreover, the Individual Defendants

[889 F.Supp.2d 426]

did not hear plaintiffs say anything indicating that they were carrying a weapon. ( Id. ¶ 52.)

B. The Traffic Stop of Plaintiffs

With plaintiffs in the vehicle, plaintiffs' friends drove away from Secrets towards the Hospital, but the Individual Defendants stopped the vehicle en route to the Hospital. ( Id. ¶¶ 53–56.) When one of the Individual Defendants approached the vehicle and demanded the driver's license and registration, the driver requested an explanation for the traffic stop. ( Id. ¶¶ 57–58.) The officer refused to explain the purpose of the traffic stop, and again requested the driver's license and registration. ( Id. ¶ 59.) The driver then complied with the officer's repeated request to provide her license and registration. ( Id. ¶¶ 59–60.) Thereafter, without explanation, the Individual Defendants ordered all of the vehicle occupants, including plaintiffs, to exit the vehicle. ( Id. ¶ 61.) After the occupants had exited the vehicle, the Individual Defendants asked Matthews their destination, and Matthews explained that they were taking Allan to the Hospital for medical treatment after his assault. ( Id. ¶¶ 62–64.)

Although the Individual Defendants observed Allan's injuries and knew he required medical assistance, they further detained plaintiffs and searched the vehicle without the occupants' consent. ( Id. ¶¶ 65–66.) The search revealed a gun inside the pocket of a jacket located in the vehicle. ( Id. ¶ 67.) The Individual Defendants knew that the jacket and gun belonged to one of plaintiffs' friends, and not to plaintiffs. ( Id. ¶ 68.) Nevertheless, the Individual Defendants arrested all five of the vehicle occupants and transported them to the 77th Precinct. ( Id. ¶¶ 69–70.) In effecting the arrests, the Individual Defendants “brutally handcuffed” plaintiffs, causing pain and numbness to plaintiffs' wrists. ( Id. ¶¶ 91, 97.) Plaintiffs asked the Individual Defendants to loosen the handcuffs, but they refused. ( Id. ¶ 92.)

C. The Coerced Confession

At the 77th Precinct, the Individual Defendants denied Matthews' requests to release Allan so that he could go to the Hospital and obtain medical attention. ( Id. ¶¶ 75–76.) Although Matthews informed the Individual Defendants that the gun was not his and that he did not know who possessed it, the Individual Defendants attempted to coerce Matthews into signing a written confession by withholding medical treatment from his brother Allan. ( Id. ¶¶ 74–75.) The Individual Defendants told all five arrestees that they would not be released and Allan would not receive medical attention until one of them signed a written confession admitting to possession of the gun. ( Id. ¶ 71.) Because the individual who possessed the gun failed to confess, Matthews capitulated to police coercion and signed a written confession so that Allan could receive medical assistance. ( Id. ¶¶ 72–74, 77–78.)

At approximately 9:25 AM on December 20, 2007,¹ approximately thirty minutes after Matthews signed a false confession, Allan and the three other vehicle occupants were released from custody. ( Id. ¶¶ 79–80.) After his release, Allan sought medical treatment at the Hospital and was diagnosed with several ailments, including a detached retina from head trauma. ( Id. ¶ 81.)

D. The Prosecution of Plaintiff Matthews

Matthews was subsequently charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in

[889 F.Supp.2d 427]

the Second and Third Degrees. ( Id. ¶ 82.) The Individual Defendants provided false information to the Assistant District Attorney, the Grand Jury, and during suppression hearings to justify the stop and search of the vehicle occupied by plaintiffs and to explain Matthews' arrest. ( Id. ¶¶ 84–85.) Each of the Individual Defendants had a different version of the events occurring after they arrived at Secrets on the night of the arrest. ( Id. ¶ 47.) Based on the Individual Defendants' fabricated testimony, however, the Grand Jury indicted Matthews. ( Id. ¶ 86.) Moreover, at a Mapp, Dunaway, and Huntley hearing on May 18 and 20, 2010, defendants Granahan, Miller, and Marino testified falsely about the stop, seizure, and search of the vehicle occupied by plaintiffs. ( Id. ¶ 88.) On July 27, 2010, the charges against Matthews were dismissed, due to the inconsistent false statements made by the Individual Defendants. ( Id. ¶ 89.) Before the charges were dismissed, Matthews had appeared in court on approximately nine occasions. ( Id. ¶ 90.)

E. Other Relevant Allegations

From the time of the initial traffic stop on December 20, 2007 to the dismissal of Matthews' charges on July 27, 2010,² the Individual Defendants observed each other violate plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and did nothing to prevent the constitutional violations. ( Id. ¶ 93.)

Individual defendant Sergeant Marino has a history of police misconduct involving substantiated allegations of dishonesty. ( Id. ¶ 99.) Specifically, the City and NYPD suspended Marino for thirty days and placed him on modified duty for three years because he failed to report and was untruthful about an incident where a friend and fellow police officer shot an individual. ( Id. ¶ 101.) Although the City and...