Newton v. the City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 21 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 07 Civ. 6211(SAS),07 Civ. 6211(SAS) |
| Citation | 738 F.Supp.2d 397 |
| Parties | Alan NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK; District Attorneys Mario Merola and Robert T. Johnson, Individually, and in Their Official Capacities; Andrea Freund and Various John/Jane Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities As Employees of the City of New York Who Are/Were Assistant District Attorneys Within the Office of the District Attorney, County of Bronx; Detective Joanne Newbert, Detective Phillip Galligan, Detective [John Doe] Hartfield, Detective [John Doe] Ryan, Detective [John Doe] Harris, Police Officer Douglas Leho, Police Officer William Sean O'Toole, Lieutenant Michael Sheehan, Sergeant Patrick J. McGuire, Police Officer [John Doe] Haskins, Police Officer [Jane Doe] Kiely, Inspector Jack J. Trabitz and Various John/Jane Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities As Employees of the City of New York Who Are/Were Members of the Police Department of the City of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John Francis Schutty III, Esq., Law Office of John F. Schutty, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Arthur Gabriel Larkin III, Fred Michael Weiler, Assistant Corporation Counsel, The New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Alan Newton was released from prison on July 6, 2006, after serving more than twenty-two years for a rape and assault that DNA testing ultimately proved he did not commit. In 1988, Newton sought and was granted permission to test the rape kit containing the exonerating DNA evidence. This never happened. Instead, Patricia Ryan, a laboratory scientist employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York ("OCME")—rather than an independent laboratory—conducted the required forensic analysis. Ryan did not detect the presence of any sperm in the biological fluid samples taken from the victim, and thus could not rule out Newton as the attacker. Subsequent tests performed on the rape kit in 2006 and 2010, however, identified ample amounts of sperm and were able to conclusively establish Newton's innocence.
Newton has since brought a civil rights action against the City for his erroneous conviction, and asserts constitutional claims against Ryan for her alleged role in defendants' investigation, prosecution, and subsequent failure to examine exculpatory evidence.1 Newton also alleges a state law claim for malicious prosecution against the City based on Ryan's alleged misconduct. Defendants now seek Ryan's dismissal from the case on the basis of governmental immunity, and alternatively, on the merits.2 For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion is granted in its entirety.
II. FACTS3
In the early morning hours of June 23, 1984, a woman known as V.J.4 was raped, robbed, and assaulted in the area of Crotona Park, in the Bronx. 5 Shortly thereafter, V.J. was taken to Jacobi Hospital for a physical examination, which included the use of a "Vitullo rape kit" to collect and store biological evidence gathered from V.J.'s body.6 The rape kit contained pubic and head hair, as well as three cotton swabs and four microscope slides with body fluids.7 No tests were conducted to determine the assailant's blood type from the semen collected in the rape kit, or to compare the enclosed hairs with those of the victim or Newton. 8 Accordingly, Newton was not connected to V.J.'s assault by any physical evidence.9
At trial, Newton presented two witnesses to support his assertion of an alibi. 10 On May 21, 1985, Newton was convicted by a jury of raping, assaulting, and robbing V.J. on the basis of eyewitness testimony and V.J.'s identification of him as her assailant.11 On May 31, 1985, the court sentenced Newton to concurrent prison terms of 8 1/3 to 25 years for the rape and robbery charges, followed by a consecutive prison term of 5 to 15 years for the assault.12 Twenty-two years later, DNA evidence exonerated Newton and his conviction was vacated.13
Newton first requested testing on the rape kit on or about January 29, 1988, in a motion filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.14 At the time, Newton asked for an independent laboratory test to determine whether semen collected from V.J.'s person and clothing was produced by a "secretor" or a "non-secretor," and thereafter determine if Newton was a match.15 On April 6, 1988, Justice Burton Roberts granted Newton'srequest and authorized inspection of the rape kit "for the purpose of determining whether scientific testing could be performed." 16 If the examination yielded sufficient biological data to complete a serological analysis, the Court allowed Newton to apply for a further Order "directing the New York State Department of Corrections to make arrangements" as necessary.17 Judge Roberts ordered Mario Merola, the then-District Attorney of Bronx County, to "secure and deliver" the rape kit to the Medical Examiner of the City of New York, where an independent laboratory and doctor could conduct the first phase of the testing.18 For unknown reasons, on July 27, 1988, the rape kit was given to Ryan—an employee of the OCME—for analysis,19 rather than to Newton's expert Dr. Robert Shaler, who was named in Judge Roberts' Order.20
On September 2, 1988, Ryan provided a written report stating that the there was insufficient semen in the rape kit to complete the requested tests. 21 Ryan noted that she did not observe any sperm on either the slides or within the swabs; 22 Thereafter, the rape kit was returned to storage at the Property Clerk Division of the New York City Policy Department ("NYPD"), where it was subsequently misplaced until 2005.23 When the rape kit was finally re-located, it was submitted to the OCME's Department of Forensic Biology for DNA testing, and the evidence was divided to enable testing by an independent laboratory.24 The results of this testing, completed by the OCME in March 2006 and by the independent laboratory in April 2006, led to Newton's exoneration on July 6, 2006.25
In anticipation of trial, Newton's counsel secured a court order on May 28, 2010 that required defendants to produce the rape kit for testing to Newton's expert forensic scientist, Dr. Edward Blake.26 Dr. Blake's examination yielded a surprising discovery—"readily visible ... intact ... and abundant spermatozoa" on the slides found in the rape kit.27 Dr. Blake determined that the quantity and condition of the samples made them "more than adequate for a successful ... DNA typing analysis," 28 thus purportedly rendering "Ryan's examination of the hospital slides ... ineffectiveand reckless" or perhaps implying "that she never examined the slides" at all.29
Based on the new evidence presented by Dr. Blake, this Court reinstated three causes of action in Newton's Amended Complaint, which alleged three federal civil rights claims against Ryan directly, as well as a state law claim against the City based on Ryan's alleged misconduct.30 Specifically, Newton asserted three causes of action involving Ryan, alleging: (1) Section 1983 claims based on a loss of evidence; (2) Section 1985 claims based on a civil rights conspiracy to violate Newton's rights; and (3) Section 1983 claims for malicious prosecution against Ryan individually, with a corresponding state law claim against the City based on Ryan's employ.31 These claims were previously dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity, but are reexamined here in consideration of the facts that have since emerged. Defendants argue that the rationale of immunity, either qualified or absolute, is still warranted and that the claims against Ryan must be permanently dismissed.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint" 32 and "draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." 33 However, the court need not accord "[l]egal conclusions, deductions or opinions couched as factual allegations ... a presumption of truthfulness." 34 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must meet a standard of "plausibility." 35 A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." 36 Plausibility "is not akin to a probability requirement;" rather, plausibility requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." 37 Pleading a fact that is "merely consistent with a defendant's liability" does not satisfy the plausibility standard.38
When determining the sufficiency of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is normally required to consider only the allegations in the complaint. However, the court is allowed to consider documents outside the pleading if the documents are integral to the pleading or subject to judicial notice.39
40 Actions brought under Section 1983 are to be read "in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them." 41 The form of immunity to which a public employee is entitled "turns on the kind of function the employee is fulfilling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
...it ripe for dismissal.”); Adams v. New York State Educ. Dep't, 752 F.Supp.2d 420, 452 n. 32 (S.D.N.Y.2010); Newton v. City of New York, 738 F.Supp.2d 397, 416 n. 130 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“Newton did not respond to defendants' motion to dismiss his claim against the City for Ryan's wrongdoing in ......
-
Walia v. Napolitano
...on a motion for reconsideration, a court should not entertain arguments not raised on the original motion); Newton v. City of New York, 738 F.Supp.2d 397, 416–18 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (holding that reconsideration “is not an opportunity for making new arguments that could have been previously adva......
-
Ying v. City of N.Y.
...office itself"). In arguing that Dr. Landi is entitled to absolute immunity, the City Defendants rely heavily on Newton v. City of New York, 738 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). However, the Court does not find Newton to be applicable here. In Newton, the plaintiff, who had been convicted o......
-
Torcivia v. Suffolk Cnty.
...).Courts have previously found that state and city doctors can qualify for this type of immunity. E.g. , Newton v. City of New York , 738 F. Supp. 2d 397, 411-12 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that laboratory scientist was entitled to immunity); Babi-Ali v. City of New York , 979 F. Supp. 268, 27......