Rech v. Cnty. of Monroe
| Docket Number | 17-CV-6418-FPG |
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Parties | MICHAEL RECH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MONROE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION AND ORDER
The facts underlying this case arose during a child-custody dispute between the Plaintiff Michael Rech (“Rech”) and his ex-wife, Jennifer Szczublewski (“Szczublewski”), regarding their son “LR.” At the outset, the Court acknowledges that such disputes are often difficult for parents and fraught with emotion. Were Rech seeking to vindicate rights related to child custody or rights of visitation, this Court would not have jurisdiction. See Neustein v. Orbach, 732 F.Supp. 333, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) () (citation omitted). Instead, this case is properly before this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether the Defendants are liable for violations of Rech's civil rights under 42 US.C. § 1983.
Rech has sued Defendants Monroe County, New York (“Monroe County”), Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Daniel Strollo (“Strollo”), the Monroe County Sheriff's Office (“MCSO”), and MCSO officers Christopher Fay (“Fay”), Daniel Phillipp (“Phillipp”), George Wilczak (“Wilczak”), Kenneth Weber (“Weber”) and Joshua DeRuyter (“DeRuyter”), and “other unknown employees of Monroe County and MCSO ” all in their individual and official capacities.
ECF No. 31. His claims arise principally from a March 2016 encounter with police officers at his home, his subsequent prosecution on state charges related to that encounter, and an unrelated July 2016 encounter with police.
Presently before the Court is Rech's omnibus motion seeking (1) recusal of United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson; (2) a finding of fraud on the court; (3) sanctions against the Defendants; (4) leave to amend the Amended Complaint; and (5) to reopen discovery. See generally ECF No. 96; ECF No. 97. Also pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all claims, ECF No. 93. For the reasons that follow, Rech's motions are DENIED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Where disputed, the facts are taken in the light most favorable to Rech.
On March 15, 2016, Defendants DeRuyter and Phillipp, along with Civil Deputy Andrew Loughlin, Civil Deputy Blake Phillips, and Road Patrol Deputy Parker Blackburn arrived at Rech's home to carry out the transfer of LR to Szczublewski.[1] ECF No. 93-1 at 3. They were acting pursuant to a March 15, 2016 Order (the “Entry Order”) issued by Acting Monroe County Supreme Court Justice John Owens which stated that, in the event LR was not returned to Szczublewski by 4:00PM that day, “then the Monroe County Sheriff's Office is directed and authorized to immediately enter [Rech's] home . . . to effectuate the return of [LR] to [Szczublewski].” ECF No. 93-9 at 32-33.
Among the evidence proffered by the parties related to the March 15, 2016 encounter is an audio recording made by Rech. ECF No. 93, Exhibit 18.[2] “Although on summary judgment the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff[ ] as the non-moving part[y], when there is reliable objective evidence-such as a recording-the evidence may speak for itself.” Marcavage v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 98, 110 (2d Cir. 2012). Where there exists “a discrepancy between the parties' versions of the facts and a recording of the incident, a court may rely on an unaltered . . . audio recording.” Burwell v. Peyton, 131 F.Supp.3d 268, 293 (D. Vt. 2015).
The audio recording is approximately four minutes long. It begins with Rech stating “today is Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 5:08PM.” At the 54 second mark, the doorbell rings. This comports with DeRuyter's account of the events, which indicates that, upon arrival at Rech's home, he rang the doorbell and Rech came to the door. ECF No. 93-3 at 4. A door can be heard opening at the 1:07 mark, and Rech then says “What's going on?” As indicated in DeRuyter's declaration, Rech had opened the main door and was speaking to DeRuyter through a locked glass storm door. Id.
DeRuyter responds to Rech, though it is muffled on the recording-presumably because he is on the other side of the glass-and asks “mind talking for a minute?” Rech says in reply, “no go ahead.” DeRuyter then asks, “can you open the door for me so I can talk to you for a minute?” Rech declines to open the storm door, replying “I can hear you. DeRuyter responds, “I don't think you can hear me, ” followed by something inaudible. Rech then says, “I'm willing to talk, hang on.”
DeRuyter then asks again, “please open the door for me so I can speak with you.” Rech responds, “I'm good.” DeRuyter then orders, in a slow and deliberate tone, “Michael-I need you to open the door with me so I can speak to you.” Rech replies something to the effect of “do you have any papers or anything, ” though his exact statement is difficult to make out on the recording. DeRuyter replies, “Yup I do.” This portion of the audio accords with DeRuyter's declaration, in which he asserts that Rech wanted to see a copy of Judge Owens's Order, so DeRuyter showed it to him through the glass. Id. DeRuyter avers that Rech then opened the storm door so that the officers could give him a copy of the Order. ECF No. 93-3 at 4. At the 1:37 mark of the recording, a noise that sounds like a door handle opening can be heard, thus the recording once again aligns with DeRuyter's account at that point in time.
Once the door is open, Rech states “I'm not here to cause problems I'm just asserting my rights.” DeRuyter answers, “I understand that you're doing that man, ” his voice is much clearer and louder now-further supporting that the glass storm door was now open. DeRuyter avers in his declaration that once Rech opened the storm door, he “immediately stepped inside the house so that he would not shut the door on me and prevent us from complying with the Judge's Order to remove his son.” Id.
DeRuyter then informs Rech, “we have an updated order, unfortunately, from the Judge, that states that you have to turn over [LR] to us right now.” Rech responds, “to you guys?” DeRuyter replies, “yes.” Rech then says “well I haven't seen anything, ” to which DeRuyter replies, “I understand, we're going to give it to you right now, ” seemingly in reference to the Entry Order. “Can I have a chance to read it?, ” Rech asks, and states immediately after that statement “don't touch me.” DeRuyter indicates in his declaration that, at this point in time, he was “directing [Rech] towards a dining table that was near the front door.” Id.
Next, DeRuyter says “you're not going inside without us.” Rech asks in reply, “do you have a search warrant?, ” to which DeRuyter responds, “yes it's in here, so either you're going to take it down a little bit or-” Rech cuts DeRuyter off and says “OK, let me talk to you guys, ” to which DeRutyer says “yup.” Despite DeRuyter's assertion that he had a “search warrant, ” the undisputed facts in the record indicate that he and his fellow officers had the Entry Order, not a search warrant. Rech next says “I have concerns that nothing has been addressed.” DeRuyter says in reply “alright, listen, Michael, I understand that but we have concerns as well.” The two talk over each other and then Rech is heard saying “may I speak?” DeRuyter says “yes, ” and Rech asks “am I under arrest?” DeRuyter replies, “If you aren't going to cooperate with this order then you'll be under arrest, yes.” This portion of the audio is supported by DeRuyter's declaration in which he avers that he informed Rech “that he would be arrested if he did not turn over his son.” Id.
Rech then asks, “what law am I violating?” In response, DeRuyter states “you're going to be violating the Judge's order which is criminal contempt, OK.” Rech then asks “what assures [LR's] safety because he's getting beat up by my ex and her boyfriend?” DeRuyter responds, The two then talk over one another again and then Rech is heard saying “Timeout, who are you guys what are your names.” In response, DeRutyer says “we're the Sheriff's Office.” The audio in indiscernible as the two talk over one another again until DeRutyer can be heard clearly asking “where is your son?” and Rech is heard in reply, asking “can I have a name?” DeRuyter replies, “yes, Joshua DeRuyter.” Another officer is heard responding with his name.
DeRuyter then says “listen, we are not having a discussion here, so either you are going to tell me where your son is and we're going to retrieve [LR] and I can sit and talk to you about this, or you are going to get arrested.” This portion of the audio corroborates DeRuyter's assertion that he explained to Rech that his fellow officers would be removing LR and that DeRuyter could discuss the Order with Plaintiff. ECF No. 93-3 at 5. Rech replies, “alright where's he going to go?” DeRuyter explains in response that LR will be handed over to Szczublewski.
DeRuyter then states, “do you have any-where is [LR]?” Rech's voice is heard more agitated and he says “wait a second guys.” This lines up with Derutyer's averment that Rech became agitated and “refused [DeRuyter's] requests to move out of the doorway” so that other officers, in addition to DeRuyter, could enter the home. Id. However DeRuyter is not heard expressly requesting that Rech “move out of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial