Nelson v. City of N.Y.

Decision Date09 August 2019
Docket Number18 Civ. 4636 (PAE)
PartiesMICHAEL NELSON and SAMUEL LUNA, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER JOHN MISZUK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE LITUTENANT MATEUSZ TKACZUK, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER SPIROS FRANGATOS, NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER DAVID CORTES, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROCKY ETIENNE, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANTONIO FONSECO, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL LIEUTENANT PHILLIP M. DETRAGLIA, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANTHONY WILLINGHAM, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT GREGORY A. STOVALL, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL LIEUTENANT JAMES R. TEDESCO, NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN MICHAEL MOE (fictitious name), JOHN DOES (fictitious names), RICHARD ROES (fictitious names), MICHAEL MOES (fictitious names), PAUL POES (fictitious names), Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Michael Nelson and Samuel Luna bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against the City of New York (the "City") and several New York Police Department ("NYPD") officers (collectively the "City defendants"), as well as numerous New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") officers (the "DOCCS defendants"). Nelson and Luna bring a number of claims under § 1983, including false arrest; false imprisonment; assault; battery; unlawful search and seizure, including in connection with a strip search; wrongful prosecution; abuse of process; violation of due process rights; failure to intercede; and fabrication of an account or evidence. Nelson and Luna also bring claims against the City, for Monell liability under § 1983. Nelson, independently, brings a state-law claim for malicious prosecution and for respondeat superior liability against the City based on that claim.

Pending now are motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The City defendants move to dismiss all claims against the individual City defendants and all claims of municipal liability. The individual DOCCS defendants move to dismiss all claims against them.

For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part each motion.

I. Background1
A. The Parties

Nelson and Luna are residents of New York State. TAC ¶ 7. They have brought claims against the City, 10 identified individual defendants, one unidentified individual defendant, and four categories of unidentified defendants.

The City is responsible for the NYPD. On October 31, 2018, Nelson and Luna's counsel received a letter from the New York City Law Department identifying the NYPD officers that came to the Queensboro Correctional Facility on October 25, 2016. Id. ¶ 43.

Because plaintiffs do not have a clear understanding of the names of certain of the NYPD officers with whom they interact, they have alternatively sued officers by name and pseudonym. Thus, the individual NYPD officers described in the TAC as "John Does" may overlap with, or be, defendants John Miszuk, Mateusz Tkaczuk, Spiros Frangatos, and/or David Cortes. Id. Nelson and Luna also bring claims against Tkaczuk, an NYPD Lieutenant, and the unidentified "Richard Roes" in their capacity as NYPD supervisors. Id. ¶¶ 8-10.

The same is true with respect to the individual DOCCS defendants. On October 18, 2018, plaintiffs' counsel received a copy of the DOCCS Unusual Incident Report ("UIR") from the New York State Attorney General's office, identifying the DOCCS employees involved in the incident. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiffs' counsel asked the assigned Assistant Attorney General ("A.A.G."), Wilson, to "speak with the DOCCS personnel mentioned in the document" to determine specific officers' roles in the incident. Id. ¶ 22. However, neither A. A.G. Wilson nor his successor A.A.G. Bruce Turkle provided the requested information to Nelson and Luna's counsel. Id. ¶ 23. As a result, the individual DOCCS Officers described in the TAC as "Michael Moes" may overlap with, or be, defendants Rocky Etienne, Antonio Fonseco, Phillip M. Detraglia, Anthony Willingham, Gregory A. Stovall, and James R. Tedesco. Id. ¶ 19. Likewise, the individual described in the TAC as "Michael Moe Correctional Captain" may be one of defendants Detraglia, Stovall, or Tedesco, all of whom have supervisory rank. Id. Nelson and Luna also bring claims against Detraglia, Gregory, Tedesco, "Michael Moe CorrectionalCaptain" and the unidentified "Paul Poes" in their capacity as DOCCS supervisors. Id. ¶¶ 11-12.

B. Factual Background

On October 25, 2016, at approximately 1:30 p.m., Nelson and Luna entered the New York State DOCCS Queensboro Correctional Facility, located in Long Island City, New York, to visit a friend who was an inmate at the facility. TAC ¶ 13. After clearing the facility's security procedures without incident, Nelson and Luna entered the visiting room. Id. ¶ 14. When their friend arrived, Nelson and Luna each shook his hand. Id. ¶ 15. Nelson and Luna visited with their friend for about 30 minutes without additional physical contact. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. Nelson and Luna allege that neither passed any item to their friend. Id. ¶ 17.

Approximately 30 minutes into Nelson and Luna's visit, an unidentified DOCCS officer escorted their friend from the visiting room. Id. ¶ 18. Nelson and Luna waited in the visiting room for approximately 25 minutes after their friend's removal. Id. ¶ 27. During this time, Luna was permitted to use the bathroom by DOCCS officers, but Nelson was not. Id. ¶¶ 29-30.

Nelson and Luna were then approached by an unidentified DOCCS officer, identified in the TAC as "Michael Moe Correctional Captain," told to leave the visiting room, and instructed to wait in the facility's locker room, where visitors stored their personal belongings before entering the facility. Id. ¶¶ 31-33. Nelson and Luna waited in the locker room without being permitted to leave by DOCCS officers for one to one-and-a-half hours. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37. Nelson again asked to use the bathroom, but he was not permitted to leave. Id. ¶ 36. After complaining to the DOCCS officers, Nelson was given a bottle in which to urinate. Id. ¶ 38. While being observed by a DOCCS officer, Nelson urinated into the bottle, it overflowed, and urine came into contact with his hand and the floor. Id. ¶¶ 39-41.

While being held in the locker room, Nelson saw four plainclothes NYPD officers behind a glass window, likely NYPD officers Miszuk, Tkaczuk, Frangatos, and Cortes, speaking with two DOCCS officers. Id. ¶ 42. Nelson "heard one of the [DOCCS officers] . . . tell the [NYPD officers], in sum and substance that he thought he had seen one of the Plaintiffs pass something." Id. ¶ 44. Then, "[o]ne of the [NYPD officers] asked this [DOCCS officer], in sum and substance, if he thought he had seen one of the Plaintiffs pass something, or if he actually saw it." Id. ¶ 45. "The [DOCCS officer] said that he thought he saw it." Id. ¶ 46

Approximately 10 minutes after this conversation, the DOCCS officers and the NYPD officers entered the locker room and placed Nelson under arrest at the direction of NYPD officer Tkaczuk. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. Officers told Luna that he was free to leave. Id. ¶ 49.

Nelson was then handcuffed, removed from the facility, and taken to a local police precinct, where he was subjected to a visual body cavity strip search. Id. ¶¶ 47, 50-52. No contraband was found on Nelson. Id. ¶ 53. Nelson was held at the precinct for a few hours and then taken to Queens Central Booking. Id. ¶ 55. Nelson was later arraigned and charged with Promoting Prison Contraband in the Second Degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 205.20(1), Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree in violation of Penal Law § 221.35, and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana in violation of Penal Law § 221.05. Id. ¶ 56. At his arraignment, bail was set at $2,500. Id. ¶ 65. Nelson was held at the Vernon C. Bain Center for the following week, until he was able to make bail. Id. ¶¶ 66-67.

The charges against Nelson were set out in a Criminal Court Complaint sworn to by NYPD Officer Miszuk. It states, in relevant part, that Miszuk was "informed by Correction Officer Rocky Etienne . . . [that] he observed the defendant, Michael Nelson, pass a plastic bag containing a quantity of marijuana to [an] inmate . . . . [Etienne] was present when CorrectionOfficer Antonio Fonseco . . . recovered a plastic bag containing a quantity of marijuana from [an] inmate . . . as he exited the visiting room[,] . . . [and it was Etienne's] conclusion that the substance recovered is marijuana . . . based upon his experience as a police officer and . . . his training in the identification and packaging of controlled substances and marijuana." Crim. Compl. at 1-2. Nelson and Luna claim that the statements in the Criminal Court Complaint are lies. They deny that either possessed or passed marijuana. TAC ¶¶ 57-60. On February 24, 2017, after approximately three court appearances and a January 26, 2017 Decision and Order by Criminal Court Judge Peter F. Vallone, Jr., all charges against Nelson were dismissed and sealed pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30. Id. ¶¶ 68-69.

After the incident, Nelson and Luna's counsel spoke to their friend, who reported that he had procured the marijuana from within the prison. Id. ¶ 61.

C. Procedural History

On May 24, 2018, Nelson and Luna filed their initial complaint against the City, NYPD officer Miszuk, the unidentified "John Doe" NYPD officers, and the unidentified "Richard Roe" NYPD supervisory officers, as well as DOCCS officers Etienne and Fonseco, an unidentified DOCCS officer described as "Michael Moe Correctional Captain," the unidentified "Michael Moe" DOCCS officers, and unidentified "Paul Poe" DOCCS supervisory officers. Dkt. 1. On October 4, 2018, the City Defendants answered. Dkt. 19. On October 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding as defendants NYPD officer Tkaczuk and DOCCS officers...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT