Ortiz v. Wagstaff

• Decision Date: 26 February 2021
• Docket Number: 1:16-CV-00321 EAW
• Parties: Josue ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. Richard WAGSTAFF, Mary Gugliuzza, BPD Does 1-12, Buffalo Police Department, the City of Buffalo, Mark Stambach, and Mark Vaughn, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

523 F.Supp.3d 347

Josue ORTIZ, Plaintiff,

v.Richard WAGSTAFF, Mary Gugliuzza, BPD Does 1-12, Buffalo Police Department, the City of Buffalo, Mark Stambach, and Mark Vaughn, Defendants.

1:16-CV-00321 EAW

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

Signed February 26, 2021

Alan J. Pierce, Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse, NY, Wayne C. Felle, Law Office of Wayne C. Felle, P.C., Williamsville, NY, for Plaintiff.

Maeve Eileen Huggins, Robert Emmet Quinn, City of Buffalo Department of Law, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Josue Ortiz ("Plaintiff") has sued Defendants for violations of his civil rights related to his arrest and conviction for the murders of Nelson and Miguel Camacho, and his subsequent exoneration. (Dkt. 1). Currently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by defendants Richard Wagstaff ("Wagstaff"), Mary Gugliuzza ("Gugliuzza"), the Buffalo Police Department ("BPD"), BPD Does 1-12, Mark Stambach ("Stambach"), and Mark Vaughn ("Vaughn") (collectively "Defendants"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 69-21), Plaintiff's response thereto (Dkt. 78-1), and the exhibits submitted by the parties. Unless otherwise noted, these facts are undisputed.

On November 11, 2004, Nelson and Miguel Camacho were murdered while in the first-floor apartment at 879 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 2; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 2). BPD officers responded to the scene and investigated the murders. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 3; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 3).

On November 16, 2004, two BPD officers brought Plaintiff to police headquarters. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 5; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 5). Plaintiff indicates that he was brought to police headquarters "as he stated he had information about the homicide." (Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 5). The parties agree that Plaintiff spoke with Stambach, but dispute whether this was Plaintiff's only interaction with Stambach. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 5; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 5).

Plaintiff did not speak much English and Stambach did not speak Spanish, so BPD Officer Edwin Torres ("Torres") assisted with translation. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶¶ 7-8; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶¶ 7-8). Plaintiff was informed of his Miranda rights in Spanish. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 9; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 9). Defendants state that Stambach then asked Plaintiff "specific questions in which his answers could be verified with information known to someone present during the homicides" and that "Plaintiff claimed that he killed the Camacho [brothers] during this questioning." (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 10). Plaintiff indicates that he "has no recollection of the events of his involvement with any members of the Buffalo Police Department (‘BPD’) in November 2004" and therefore cannot admit or deny this claim. (Dkt. 78-1 at ¶¶ 8, 10). Defendants further claim that Stambach typed up a statement reflecting his questions and Plaintiff's answers, that Torres "went through the statement with Plaintiff by reading it before Plaintiff was asked to sign it," and that Plaintiff initialed each page of the statement and signed the last page. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 10). Again, Plaintiff denies any recollection of these events. (Dkt. 78-1 at ¶¶ 8, 10). Defendants have submitted to the Court a copy of the statement. (Dkt. 69-8). Plaintiff recognizes the initials and signature on the statement as his. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 12; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 12). Plaintiff was arrested on November 17, 2004, but does not recall his arrest. (Dkt. 69-7 at 2; Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 14; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 14).

Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury for the murders of the Camacho brothers. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 16; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 16). A Huntley hearing ¹ was held and no constitutional violations warranting suppression of Plaintiff's statements were found. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 17; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 17). On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff pled guilty to two counts of manslaughter in the first degree relating to the deaths of the Camacho brothers. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 18; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 18). Plaintiff recalls entering into the plea. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 18; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 18). Plaintiff subsequently attempted to withdraw his plea, but the trial court did not permit him to do so. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 18; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 18). On June 16, 2006, the trial court sentenced Plaintiff to 25 years imprisonment, with five years of post-release supervision. (Dkt. 69-21 at ¶ 19; Dkt. 78-1 at ¶ 19).

During the course of an investigation into gangs operating in Buffalo, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office discovered that three other men—Misael Montalvo, Efrain Hidalgo, and Brandon Jonas (collectively the "Montalvo Defendants")—and not Plaintiff were responsible for the Camacho murders. Ortiz v. Case , No. 16-CV-322, 2018 WL 8620414, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2018), adopted , 2019 WL 1236413 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019), aff'd , 782 F. App'x 65 (2d Cir. 2019). In March 2013, United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara entered two Orders releasing federal grand jury minutes and material showing the involvement of the Montalvo Defendants in the Camacho murders to the Erie County District Attorney and Plaintiff's criminal counsel. Id . On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him pursuant to N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law 440 (the "440 Motion"); despite initially being opposed by the Erie County District Attorney's Office, the 440 Motion was ultimately granted in May 2015. Id.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The instant action was filed on April 25, 2016. (Dkt. 1). On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed an affidavit of service indicating that he had served Defendants by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with "Janet Poydock," the "legal steno clerk" for the City of Buffalo Corporation Counsel. (Dkt. 5).

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on August 15, 2016. (Dkt. 6). In their answer, Defendants asserted a defense that Plaintiff had "fail[ed] to obtain personal jurisdiction based on insufficient service of process." (Id. at 12).

On August 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. 32). Plaintiff cross-moved for leave to file an amended complaint.

(Dkt. 37). On March 18, 2019² , the Court entered a Decision and Order granting Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file an amended complaint except to the extent that Plaintiff sought to assert an abuse of process claim or any claims against the City of Buffalo and denying Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot. (Dkt. 56).

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on March 27, 2019. (Dkt. 59). The amended complaint asserts five causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : (1) a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment; (2) a claim for malicious prosecution; (3) a claim for violation of Plaintiff's fifth amendment right against self-incrimination; (4) a claim for a violation of Plaintiff's due process right to be free from fabrication of evidence; and (5) a claim for violation of the Defendants’ obligations under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on April 15, 2019. (Dkt. 61). In their answer to the amended complaint, Defendants again asserted insufficient service of process as a defense. (Id. at 20-21).

Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on April 24, 2020. (Dkt. 69). At the request of the parties (Dkt. 76), the Court set Plaintiff's response deadline for July 3, 2020, and Defendant's reply deadline for July 24, 2020. (Dkt. 77). Plaintiff filed a declaration and numerous exhibits on July 3, 2020 (Dkt. 78), but did not file his memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants’ motion until July 7, 2020. (Dkt. 79). Defendants filed their reply on July 24, 2020. (Dkt. 81).

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ motion seeks numerous forms of relief. First, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Gugliuzza, Stambach, and Vaugh for failure to properly serve. (Dkt. 69-1 at 9-10). Second, Defendants seek dismissal of all claims against the BPD because it lacks the capacity to be sued. (Id. at 10-11). Third, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's false arrest and false imprisonment claim on the basis that they are time-barred. (Id. at 11-12). Fourth, Defendants seek dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims against BPD Does 1-12 because Plaintiff has failed to take any action to further identify or substitute these defendants despite having been provided with voluminous discovery. (Id. at 12-13). Fifth, Defendants seek dismissal of all official capacity claims on the basis that they are duplicative of Plaintiff's dismissed claims against the City of Buffalo. (Id. at 13-14). Sixth, Defendants seek summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims on the basis that there was no violation of his constitutional rights because "ample probable cause to arrest, charge, and prosecute Plaintiff exist[ed] based upon his voluntary statement to Stambach." (Id. at 14-20). Seventh, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. (Id. at 20-24). Finally, Defendants seek summary judgment on the basis that there is no proof they withheld exculpatory evidence. (Id. at 24-25). The Court considers each of these requests below.

I. Timeliness of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law

As an initial matter, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's memorandum of law was not timely filed and should be disregarded. (Dkt. 80 at 2). As set forth above, at the request of the parties, the Court set Plaintiff's response deadline for July 3, 2020. (Dkt. 77). Plaintiff nonetheless did not file his opposing memorandum of law until July 7, 2020. (Dkt. 79). Plaintiff's memorandum of law was thus untimely.

It is true that in 2020, the Fourth of July...