Nardoni v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 07 August 2018
• Docket Number: 1:17-cv-2695-GHW
• Citation: 331 F.Supp.3d 116
• Parties: Shawn NARDONI, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Detective David Terrell, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

331 F.Supp.3d 116

Shawn NARDONI, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK and Detective David Terrell, Defendants.

1:17-cv-2695-GHW

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

Signed August 7, 2018

Chukwuemeka Nwokoro, Nwokoro & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Joseph Aaron Gutmann, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Shawn Nardoni fell victim to gun violence as a young teenager. In September 2015, he was shot in the leg in his neighborhood in the Bronx, after which he was hospitalized for several days. Following his release from the hospital, Plaintiff was handcuffed and detained by officers of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") and brought to a local police precinct. At the precinct, Plaintiff was interrogated by Defendant Detective David Terrell about the identity of Plaintiff's shooter. Plaintiff later sued Detective Terrell and the City of New York, bringing claims for false arrest and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983"). Defendants now move for summary judgment. Because it is undisputed that Detective Terrell was not involved in Plaintiff's arrest, summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's false arrest claim. And because Plaintiff points to no evidence in the record of a policy or custom by the City of New York to support his Monell claim, summary judgment is GRANTED on that claim as well.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

On or about September 1, 2015, Plaintiff was shot in the leg. Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement (ECF No. 90) ("Pl.'s 56.1") ¶ 1.² He was admitted to a hospital for treatment. Id. ; Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 54) ("SAC") ¶ 8. Plaintiff spent approximately three days in the hospital before being released. Declaration of Joseph Gutmann (ECF No. 86), Ex. B ("Pl.'s Dep.") at 64:17-23.³ Shortly after being released from the hospital, on either September 4 or 5, 2015, Plaintiff was sitting outside of his apartment building in the Bronx with a friend when he was arrested by two or three members of the NYPD. Pl.'s Dep. at 66:13-15, 77:12-20; SAC ¶¶ 9-10.

A "brown-skinned" female NYPD officer "grabbed [his] hands and put [him] in handcuffs" and then drove Plaintiff to the 42nd Precinct. Pl.'s Dep. at 77:9-11, 79:8-9, 82:23-83:9.

Once at the 42nd Precinct, Plaintiff was placed in a cell. Pl.'s Dep. at 83:10-11. At some point after that, Detective Terrell took Plaintiff from his cell to another room where Detective Terrell questioned Plaintiff. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl.'s Dep. at 83:10-13, 84:8-16. According to Plaintiff's deposition testimony, Detective Terrell kept Plaintiff in this room for three or four hours and "badgered" Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit from him the name of the individual who shot him. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 5; Pl.'s Dep. at 85:1-8. Despite Plaintiff's response that he did not know his shooter's identity, Detective Terrell "tried to force [Plaintiff] to say it was some kid," Pl.'s Dep. at 84:20-21, and "kept on repeating the same stuff trying to force [Plaintiff] to say something that [Plaintiff] did not know," id. at 85:1-3. During the interrogation, Detective Terrell also threatened to kick Plaintiff's head through the wall and punch Plaintiff in the face. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 6; Pl.'s Dep. at 84:21-22.

Following the interrogation, Detective Terrell returned Plaintiff to his cell. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 7. Plaintiff was not taken to court or to central booking in connection with his arrest. Pl.'s Dep. at 101:15-18, 125:7-126:8.

On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff was interrogated by Detective Corinne MacLennan at the 42nd Precinct in another attempt to discover the name of the individual who shot him.⁴ Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 20; Declaration of Chukwuemeka Nwokoro (ECF No. 88) ("Nwokoro Decl."), Ex. A at 47. During that interrogation, Plaintiff stated that "he ha[d] no idea who shot him." Nwokoro Decl., Ex. A at 47.

It is undisputed that Detective Terrell did not arrest Plaintiff on either September 4 or 5, 2015. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 9. It is also undisputed that Detective Terrell did not order, instruct, plan, or facilitate an arrest of Plaintiff on either September 4 or 5, 2015. Id. ¶ 10.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff's mother, Patrice Nelson, initiated this action on Plaintiff's behalf on April 14, 2017. ECF No. 1. At the time of the filing of the initial complaint, Plaintiff was a minor. The complaint asserted false arrest and malicious prosecution claims under Section 1983 against Detective Terrell and the unidentified female officer who arrested Plaintiff. Id. The complaint also alleged that the City of New York bears responsibility for such violations under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Id. In the original complaint, the female officer who arrested Plaintiff was not named because Plaintiff knew only that she was female and was an officer assigned to investigate Plaintiff's September 1, 2015 shooting. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 11.

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Detective MacLennan as the defendant previously identified as a Jane Doe officer. ECF No. 37. Detective MacLennan was added to the amended complaint based upon discovery identifying her as a female officer assigned to investigate Plaintiff's shooting. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 11.

Plaintiff amended the complaint once again on February 9, 2018, still asserting claims against Detective MacLennan, Detective Terrell, and the City of New York. ECF No. 54. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Detective MacLennan, acting in concert with Detective Terrell, improperly arrested and detained Plaintiff under false pretenses. SAC ¶ 22. Detective MacLennan is a Caucasian female. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 12. When deposed on February 7, 2018, Plaintiff testified that the officer who arrested him was a "brown-skinned" female. Id. ¶ 11; Pl.'s Dep. at 77:9-11. In light of Plaintiff's deposition testimony, on May 31, 2018, Plaintiff agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of the false arrest claim against Detective MacLennan. ECF No. 83. Plaintiff also voluntarily dismissed his malicious prosecution claims. Id. On June 6, 2018, Defendants Detective Terrell and the City of New York moved for summary judgment on the remaining false arrest and municipal liability claims. ECF No. 84.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants are entitled to summary judgement on a claim if they can "show[ ] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ("[S]ummary judgement is proper ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ " (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ) ). A genuine dispute exists where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," while a fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Id.

The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact," and, if satisfied, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to present "evidence sufficient to satisfy every element of the claim." Holcomb v. Iona Coll. , 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant—in this case, Plaintiff—"must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ). " "[M]ere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts" will not suffice." Hicks v. Baines , 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, and "may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation," Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp. , 247 F.3d 423, 428 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted).

In determining whether there exists a genuine dispute as to a material fact, the Court is "required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Johnson v. Killian , 680 F.3d 234, 236 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). The Court's job is not to "weigh the evidence or resolve issues of fact."

Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. , 310 F.3d 243, 254 (2d Cir. 2002) ; see also Hayes v. N.Y. City Dep't of Corr. , 84 F.3d 614, 619 (2d Cir. 1996) ("In applying th[e] [summary judgment] standard, the court should not weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses."). "Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment." Jeffreys v. City of New York , 426 F.3d 549, 553-54 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). "[T]he judge must ask ... not whether ... the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented." Id. at 553 (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ); see also Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Ave. , LLC, 861 F.Supp.2d 392, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("To avoid summary judgment, all that is required of the non-moving party is a showing of sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute as...