Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 1558

• Citation: 941 F.2d 119
• Decision Date: 05 August 1991
• Docket Number: D,No. 1558,1558
• Parties: Alfred RICCIUTI and Daniel Ricciuti, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. N.Y.C. TRANSIT AUTHORITY, N.Y.C. Transit Police Dept., N.Y.C. Transit Police Chief Vincent Del Castillo, N.Y.C. T.A. Police Lieutenant R.L. Wheeler, N.Y.C. T.A. Police Officer Henry Lopez, the City of New York, N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, Corrections Commissioner Richard Koehler, N.Y.C. Corrections Officer Harlice Watson, Defendants, N.Y.C. Transit Authority, N.Y.C. Transit Police Dept., N.Y.C. Transit Police Chief Vincent Del Castillo, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 91-7138.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Page 119

941 F.2d 119

20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 712

Alfred RICCIUTI and Daniel Ricciuti, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. N.Y.C. TRANSIT AUTHORITY, N.Y.C. Transit Police Dept N.Y.C. Transit Police Chief Vincent Del Castillo, N.Y.C T.A. Police Lieutenant R.L. Wheeler, N.Y.C. T.A. Police Officer Henry Lopez, the City of New York, N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, Corrections Commissioner Richard Koehler N.Y.C. Corrections Officer Harlice Watson, Defendants N.Y.C. Transit Authority, N.Y.C. Transit Police Dept., N.Y.C. Transit Police Chief Vincent Del Castillo, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1558, Docket 91-7138.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued May 23, 1991.

Decided Aug. 5, 1991.

Kathleen M. O'Connell (Murphy & O'Connell, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Steve S. Efron, New York City (Albert C. Cosenza, Larry Hecht, Brooklyn, N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before KEARSE, MAHONEY, and SNEED, ^* Circuit Judges.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Alfred and Daniel Ricciuti appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles S. Haight, Jr., Judge, dismissing their complaint against defendants-appellees N.Y.C. Transit Authority ("TA"), N.Y.C. Transit Police Dept. ("TAPD"), and N.Y.C. Transit Police Chief Vincent del Castillo for damages principally under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) in connection with plaintiffs' arrest and treatment by defendants R.L. Wheeler, Henry Lopez, and Harlice Watson. The district court dismissed the complaint against appellees for failure to state a claim, ruling that it did not adequately plead facts showing that any violation of plaintiffs' civil rights resulted from a municipal policy. The court denied plaintiffs leave to amend, ruling that alleged past incidents were insufficient to establish the basis for inferring the existence of such a policy and noting that certain reports, incorporated by reference into the proposed amended complaint, would be inadmissible at a trial. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the court erred in not permitting them to file their proposed amended complaint against appellees and in dismissing their state-law claims against appellees. We agree and vacate the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Events According to the Complaints

According to the initial and proposed complaints, Alfred Ricciuti ("Alfred") and his nephew Daniel Ricciuti ("Daniel") are New Jersey residents who, on the afternoon of April 30, 1989, went to a ball game at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, New York. As the Ricciutis walked along the crowded street after leaving the stadium, Watson, a New York City Corrections Officer who was not in uniform, and Alfred accidentally bumped into one another. Plaintiffs stepped aside to allow Watson to pass, which he did. A few steps later, Watson ran back and proceeded to assault Alfred, striking him in the face, knocking him to the ground, and menacing him with a handgun. After this beating, Watson departed, leaving Alfred dazed, and Daniel went to retrieve plaintiffs' car. Watson soon returned with Lopez, a TA Police Officer. Lopez, without inquiry, threw Alfred against a wall, searched him, and arrested him. Watson and Lopez took Alfred to a nearby TA police station, followed by Daniel. During that trip, Lopez turned and kicked Daniel, without provocation, accusing him of following too closely.

At the police station, where Wheeler, a TA Police Lieutenant, was in charge,

                Alfred attempted to file a complaint for assault against Watson.   Wheeler refused to allow him to do so.   While Daniel was waiting, Watson threw him against a wall in the station and placed him under arrest as well.   Wheeler and Lopez witnessed Watson's conduct and did nothing to impede, correct, or criticize it.   Both plaintiffs were charged with felonious assault in the second degree and the misdemeanor of aggravated harassment.   They were jailed overnight until their arraignments on May 1.   Thereafter, all of the charges against them were dismissed by the court
                

B. The Motions To Dismiss and To Amend, and the Decision Below

In April 1990, plaintiffs commenced the present action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986 (1988), various provisions of the Constitution, and state law, charging, inter alia, that they were the victims of assault, that their arrests were without provocation or probable cause, and that they were denied equal protection by the refusals of Wheeler and Lopez to process plaintiffs' charges against Watson. They alleged that appellees TA, TAPD, and del Castillo had failed adequately to train, supervise, control, or discipline Lopez and Wheeler.

To the extent pertinent here, TA, TAPD, and del Castillo promptly moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state claims against them on which relief can be granted, arguing principally that the complaint failed to allege any facts to support the assertion that the conduct complained of was the result of a government policy or practice. In opposition to appellees' motion, plaintiffs cross-moved for leave to amend their complaint and submitted a proposed amended complaint ("amended complaint" or "AC") designed to meet appellees' challenge.

The amended complaint summarized three reports relating to the arrest practices of TA police. It alleged that in a 1985 report evaluating a possible merger between TAPD and the New York City Police Department ("1985 report"), "both the general and specialized legal training offered to Transit Police were found inadequate," TAPD arrests "were said to be vulnerable to legal attack and routinely 'trivialized by prosecutors and judges,' " and TAPD was found to have established no clear line of authority with respect to discipline. (AC p 36.) The amended complaint alleged that a 1987 report dealing with the well-publicized death of one Michael Stewart in TAPD custody ("1987 report") faulted TAPD's apprehension and investigative procedures in connection with that case. It alleged that a 1988 report studying illegal arrests by transit officers ("1988 report") found that "it was 'no secret that the current training in the N.Y.C. Police Academy has serious shortcomings as a means of preparing officers for subway policing.' The report also said that 'Managers and supervisors in the TAPD are in need of specially tailored training programs focusing on police operations within the context of the transit system.' " (AC p 39.)

In addition, the amended complaint described a dozen or more instances of alleged, conceded, or adjudicated improper arrests by TA officers from 1975 to 1989. The nine cited instances in the period 1984 to 1989 included two court dismissals of criminal charges initiated by TAPD; the indictment of one TA officer on several counts of assault and harassment in connection with his false arrest of a passenger; several civil actions against TA, including a class action, for false arrest or malicious prosecution; and a 1987 acknowledgement by TAPD's Internal Affairs Division that between 1983 and 1984 several TA police officers were known to be making bad arrests but that nothing was done about it for some time. Plaintiffs alleged that these reports and instances were indicative of inadequacy of the training and supervision of TA patrolmen, and that appellees were aware of the deficiencies and were deliberately indifferent to the need to correct them.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 13, 1990, 754 F.Supp. 980 ("Decision"), the district court granted appellees' motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs' motion to file their amended complaint. With regard to the reports cited by The court also found that the amended complaint was not aided by its description of prior TAPD incidents:

                plaintiffs, the court stated that "it is useful to consider them in the context of their admissibility at trial, since if the reports would be inadmissible under the rules of evidence they cannot f[or]m a legitimate basis for inferring municipal liability at the pleading stage."  Id. at 984.   The court found that the 1988 report was irrelevant because the illegal TAPD practice it dealt with was not the type of conduct at issue here, and that this report would also be inadmissible hearsay because it was a private rather than a government report, see Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(C).   It concluded that the 1985 and 1987 reports, though arguably not excludable under the hearsay rule, would be excludable on grounds of relevance.   It found that the 1987 report was not relevant because it inquired only into the Michael Stewart incident and because that incident preceded del Castillo's appointment as TAPD chief.   It found that the observations in the 1985 report, which did not refer to specific instances of arrest practices, "fall far short of proving directly or by inference a municipal policy or practice of deliberate indifference to unconstitutional arrests by TAPD officers."  Decision at 985
                

As for the series of prior incidents plaintiffs derive from reported cases or newspaper articles, they cover a period of 15 years, in some cases refer only to accusations not findings, and arise out of a series of differing factual backgrounds. They are not sufficient to establish the basis for inferring that the TA defendants had a policy or practice of encouraging or condoning arrest conduct of the sort alleged in this complaint.

Id. at 986. With respect to both the individual incidents and the cited reports, the court stated that "[n]o common thread emerges from the facts alleged in the proposed amended complaint," id. at 987, and it concluded that

[i]f the Court were to conclude that references to these three reports, interspersed with citations to newspaper articles and court decisions culled from a 15-year review of the activities of a large municipal police department, were sufficient to plead an inference of municipal policy or...