Meyers v. City of N.Y., 1:14-cv-9142 (ALC)
| Decision Date | 27 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | 1:14-cv-9142 (ALC) |
| Parties | Charles Meyers et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of New York et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
I. INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2011, plaintiffs Charles Meyers, John Baker, Justin Strekal, and Miles Walsh traveled to New York City's Financial District to participate in a burgeoning demonstration in Zuccotti Park, a privately owned plaza. Joining dozens of others, they pitched tents and unrolled sleeping bags in the plaza, staying overnight and eventually maintaining a weeks-long, uninterrupted presence. They claimed their extended stay was an act of political protest and named their movement after its unorthodox methods: Occupy Wall Street.
On November 15, 2011, Meyers and his fellow demonstrators were arrested after refusing to comply with New York Police Department orders to vacate Zuccotti Park. Two years later, the demonstrators brought this class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the former mayor, police chief, and police commissioner of New York City, as well as the individual officers who arrested them (collectively with the municipal defendant City of New York, "the City"). They accuse the City of violating their constitutional rights by evicting them from their homes in Zuccotti Park without a warrant, notice, or an opportunity to be heard and by subjecting them to unlawful arrest, imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in retaliation for engaging in political speech. The City moves to dismiss all claims. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
II. BACKGROUND
The Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") movement gained international attention as an open-air forum addressing government policies on corporate interests and income inequality. Complaint ¶ 25. The movement's name derived from the "occupation" by dozens of demonstrators of Zuccotti Park, a privately owned plaza in downtown Manhattan's Financial District. Id. ¶ 24. Over the course of weeks, demonstrators maintained a continuous physical presence in the plaza, erecting tents and other living structures, including a kitchen and library. Id. ¶ 25. They intended to use those structures as homes for an indefinite period of time. Id. ¶ 49.
During their occupation of Zuccotti Park, the demonstrators displayed art, performed dance and music, and engaged in protests and discussion. Id. ¶ 26. Using both the physical occupation itself and related displays and discourses, the group intended to convey a "message of protest against government collusion in corporate gain at the expense of humanity and values dear to civilized culture." Id. They directed that message at both local and global observers, who either walked directly past the plaza or viewed video and images of it via television and Internet broadcasts. Id.
When the occupation began, the demonstrators were in compliance with Zuccotti Park rules that mandated 24-hour public access. Id. ¶ 29. Further, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and former New York Police Department ("NYPD") Commissioner Raymond Kelly publicly announced that the OWS demonstrators' continued camping in Zuccotti Park was permissible. Id. ¶ 30. But at some point after the occupation began and prior to thedemonstrators' arrests, the City and the park's private owners modified or suspended the rules mandating 24-hour public access, specifically to evict the OWS demonstrators. Id. ¶ 32.1
At around 1:00 a.m. on November 15, 2011, NYPD officers speaking via bullhorn ordered the demonstrators to leave the park. Id. ¶ 42. Drawing all reasonable inferences in Meyers's favor, the officers did not inform the demonstrators of changes to Zuccotti Park's rules, instead simply ordering evacuation without explanation. Id. At the same time, the officers were aware that the demonstrators honestly believed that they had a legal right to remain in Zuccotti Park, relying on the park's former rules mandating public access and the mayor and commissioner's previous public statements that their camping was permissible. Id. ¶ 34. Further, because of the late hour in which the bullhorn announcement was made, there was no person in the area who could have been annoyed by the demonstrators' conduct, other than the police themselves. Id. ¶ 36.
About an hour after ordering the demonstrators to leave the park, NYPD officers forcefully removed and arrested them. Id. ¶ 43. They did so under direct orders of Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, and Chief Esposito. Id. ¶ 44. Afterward, the City claimed thata fire hazard justified the emergency evacuation, though no emergency conditions actually existed in the park. Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 44. The City did not provide the OWS demonstrators notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to evicting them. Id. ¶ 33.
The evicted demonstrators were arrested for trespass under New York Penal Law (NYPL) § 140.05 and disorderly conduct under NYPL § 240.20. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37. Immediately following arrest, they were held in NYPD custody for over an hour. Id. ¶ 46. The City filed criminal charges against the arrestees, forcing them to return to court for one or more appearances or to remain subject to court authority to do so during a period of months. Id. ¶ 47, 87. All of the charges were eventually dismissed. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
The City does not dispute jurisdiction and the Court finds it exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Meyers alleges a federal question, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, because Meyers alleges a deprivation of civil rights.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the plaintiff's allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir.2009). But to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must offer "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action willnot do." Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't, 592 F.3d 314, 321 (2d Cir.2010). Ultimately, on a motion to dismiss "[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Meyers brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a plaintiff to sue a government official for the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. As a matter of legal pleading, Meyers claims that under the First Amendment, unspecified rules governing Zuccotti Park were unconstitutional time, place, and manner restrictions. Under both the First and Fourth Amendments, he claims that the City evicted, arrested, imprisoned, and prosecuted the OWS demonstrators without probable cause and in retaliation for engaging in protected speech. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, he claims that by forcibly evicting the demonstrators from their homes in Zuccotti Park without notice and opportunity to be heard, the City violated their reasonable expectations of privacy and their rights to procedural due process. Finally, he claims that policymaking officials of the City of New York acted directly to violate the OWS demonstrators' constitutional rights, thus incurring municipal liability under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 664 (1978).
When Meyers's complaint is read with all reasonable inferences in his favor, it alleges that the OWS demonstrators took up residence in Zuccotti Park as a form of political protest, fully in compliance with park rules mandating 24-hour public access. City officials originally condoned the demonstrators' actions, but then grew annoyed with their continued presence in Zuccotti Park as global media brought increasing scrutiny to the OWS movement. So they changed the park rules in order to evict the demonstrators without first notifying them or seekingrequired approval from the New York City Planning Commission. Deliberately choosing not to notify the demonstrators of the change, city officials then arrested them, in part for violating those rules. Afterward, to cover their malfeasance, officials fabricated a fire-related emergency in the park to justify eviction of the demonstrators.
As currently pleaded, Meyers's complaint does not fully bear out all of his theories. Below, the Court explains in detail why it reaches that conclusion.
Meyers claims that the demonstrators' eviction from Zuccotti Park without notice or opportunity to be heard violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process. "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'" Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 592 (2d Cir. 1999) ). "To plead a violation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that he was deprived of property without constitutionally adequate pre- or post-deprivation process." J.S. v. T'Kach, 714 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53, 62 (2d Cir.2012)). "The first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in 'property'. . . ." Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999). "Such property...
To continue reading
Request your trial