Rosado v. Vill. of Goshen
| Decision Date | 31 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 7:16-CV-6916 (NSR) |
| Parties | RANDAL ROSADO, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF GOSHEN, ROBERT NICHOLS, RYAN RICH,GREGORY KELEMAN, ROBERT FOLEY, MICHAEL HOWARD, JILLIAN GUERRERA, MICHAEL CASTNER, JOHN FARRELL Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Randal Rosado ("Plaintiff") proceeding pro se commenced this action asserting multiple 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") claims for allege civil rights violations against various defendants from New York and Florida. Before the Court are Defendants' motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. §§ 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to assert a claim upon which relief may be granted . (ECF No. 105, 130 & 134.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motions are GRANTED.
Plaintiff commenced this action on or about September 2, 2016, asserting Section 1983 and Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants Village of Goshen, Gregory Keleman1 ("Defendant Keleman"), Detective Ryan Rich ("Defendant Rich") of the Village of GoshenPolice Department (collectively the "Village Defendants"), Defendants Michael Castner ("Defendant Castner") John Farell ("Defendant Farell"), Robert Foley ("Defendant Foley"), Jillian Guerrera ("Defendant Guerrera") and Michael Howard ("Defendant Howard") of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") ("collectively the "Federal Defendants"), and Robert Nichols ("Defendant Nichols") of the Florida Lee County State Attorney's Office. On or about December 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint ("AC") asserting similar Section 1983 claims. (ECF No. 69) The AC is the operative complaint.
The following facts are derived from the AC, or matters of which the Court may take judicial notice and are assumed to be true for the purpose of these motions.2
On June 28, 2016, at 6 a.m., Plaintiff was asleep in his residence at 129 West Main Street, Goshen, New York, when the Federal Defendants and Defendant Nichols unlawfully entered his home. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Defendants entered the home without consent or a warrant, for purposes of making a felony arrest and to execute a warrantless search and seizure of his residence. (Compl. ¶ 23.)
At the time they entered, Defendants had their weapons drawn. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Immediately upon entering, Plaintiff was handcuffed and taken into custody. (Id.) Prior to being taken into custody, Plaintiff was not engaged in any violent or threatening behavior. (Compl. ¶ 25.) No exigent circumstances existed. (Id.) The FBI Defendants removed Plaintiff from his second-floor apartment and transferred him from FBI custody into the custody of Defendant"Keleman and the Village of Goshen." (Compl. ¶ 26.) Defendant Keleman transported Plaintiff to the Village of Goshen Police Department for arrest processing. (Id.)
The Federal Defendants along with Defendant Nichols remained at Plaintiff's residence for the purpose of executing the search. (Compl. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff wife was unlawfully placed under arrest, and then un-arrested moments later and removed from the residence.3 (Compl. ¶ 28.) As a result of the incident, Plaintiff alleges he suffered various injuries, including permanent damage to his professional career, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, humiliation and deprivation of his constitutional rights. (Compl. ¶¶ 35 and 36.)
The AC references and relies on an affidavit prepared by Defendant Nichols, dated November 6, 2017 ( the "Affidavit"),4 wherein he states that he and Defendant Foley did not enter Plaintiff's residence due to their lack of authority and jurisdiction to enter, Detective Ryan Rich, members of the Orange County Deputies Task Force, and members of the FBI Hudson Valley RA Squad C-37 ("Task Force teams") went to Plaintiff's residence, knocked, announced their presence, entered the premises and arrested Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff also references a deposition of Defendant Nichols taken on May 26, 2017, wherein he purportedly acknowledges participating in the arrest and the execution of the search. (Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff further alleges that in the Affidavit, Defendant Nichols states that task force members secured the premises and were waiting to "acquiring a search warrant to execute that same day" and that "nothing was seized at this point, ...pending receipt of the search warrant." (Compl. ¶ 30.)
In the AC, plaintiff references statements made by Defendant Nichols in a video taped interrogation wherein he stated: "You were disappointed that you're living your life herein in -in New York, and you're doing your thing, and we, the law enforcement, are coming in and we're invading your house during a search warrant and arresting your husband."5 (Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff also references Nichols statement: (Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that the transcript of the video confirms that the couple's computers, phones and other personal items were taken without a warrant. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Nichols, Foley and Rich are observed on the video seeking password information and personal details from Plaintiff's wife. (Id.)
On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff's wife and power of attorney, Michelle Rosado, attempted to obtain a copy of the arrest report and affidavit used in support of the search warrant regarding the June 28, 2016 arrest and search. (Compl. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff's wife was informed by the officers at the Village of Goshen Police Department that she could obtain a copy from Defendant Village of Goshen at the Village Hall. Plaintiff's wife completed a Freedom of Information Request Act but was denied a copy of the requested information on July 12, 2016. (Id.)
In support of their motion, the Village Defendants submit a copy of the Florida Arrest Warrant wherein Plaintiff is charged with fifteen criminal counts, including felony offenses.6 ( ECF No. 106, Declaration of Gil Auslander in Support of Motion to Dismiss ("Auslander Decl."), Ex. F at 1-5.) Attached to Plaintiff's original complaint, and referenced in the AC, is a copy of the search warrant executed on Plaintiff's home. (ECF No. 2, Ex. 1.) The search warrant was issued on June 28, 2016, by a New York State, Orange County Court judge. The searchwarrant provides that officers are authorized to search the premises identified as 129 West Main Street, Goshen, NY (Plaintiff's residence), between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. (Id.) The search warrant authorizes officers to search all enclosures in the apartment, including computer equipment, cellular telephones, boxes, drawers, desks and bags. (Id.) The search warrant indicates that special agents of the FBI and investigators from the Florida State's Attorney Office are authorized to assist in the search, and that the Orange County District Attorney's Office was authorized to share information regarding the results of the search with the other agencies. (Id.) Furthermore, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint was a copy of a seized property list, which includes the Plaintiff's computer. (Id.)
In his AC, Plaintiff asserts two claims: 1) Plaintiff alleges the individual Defendants conspired to deprive him of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Compl. ¶ 43.); and 2) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Village of Goshen should be held liable under Section1983 because their customs, procedures and policies were the moving force behind the individual defendants violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Compl. ¶¶ 47-48.)
A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. Rule Civ. P. § 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2011). When challenged, a plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists. Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008); Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). In assessing whether there is subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint (Conyers v.Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2009)), but "the court may resolve [any] disputed jurisdictional fact issues by referring to evidence outside of the pleadings, such as affidavits." Zappia Middle E. Const. Co. v. Emirate of Abu Dhabi, 215 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2000).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the central inquiry for a motion to dismiss is whether the complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." (Id.) at 679. The Court must take all material factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor, but the Court is "'not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,'" to credit "mere conclusory statements," or to accept "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, a district court must consider the context and "draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the factual content pleaded allows a court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for...
To continue reading
Request your trial