Slater v. McDonald, 12-CV-04325 (NGG) (RML)

• Decision Date: 09 November 2015
• Docket Number: 12-CV-04325 (NGG) (RML)
• Parties: NATASHA SLATER, Plaintiff, v. P.O. KAREN MACKEY #2267, TAX ID 4000 63RD PRECINCT NYPD; P.O. DANIEL YOUNG, TAX ID 4000 63RD PRECINCT, NYPD; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 63RD PRECINCT; CHILD PROTECTIVE SPECIALIST: CHARMAINE MCDONALD, ACS #6666517, UNIT #: 181-3 NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILD SERVICES DCP/BROOKLYN FIELD OFFICE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

NATASHA SLATER, Plaintiff, v. P.O. KAREN MACKEY #2267, TAX ID 4000 63RD PRECINCT NYPD;

P.O. DANIEL YOUNG, TAX ID 4000 63RD PRECINCT, NYPD;

THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

63RD PRECINCT; CHILD PROTECTIVE SPECIALIST: CHARMAINE MCDONALD,

ACS #6666517, UNIT #: 181-3 NEW

YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILD SERVICES DCP/BROOKLYN FIELD OFFICE, Defendants.

12-CV-04325 (NGG) (RML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 9, 2015

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

On October 18, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Natasha Slater ("Slater" or "Plaintiff") filed an Amended Complaint asserting numerous causes of action against Police Officers Karen Mackey and Daniel Young (together, "Police Defendants"), the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"), the 63rd Precinct, Charmaine McDonald ("McDonald"), the New York City Administration for Child Services ("ACS"), and the City of New York (the "City") (collectively, "Defendants"). (Am. Compl. (Dkt. 16).) Slater's claims center on her arrest for allegedly assaulting her daughter (referred to by the court as "A.F.") in 2012, her subsequent indictment on charges of robbery and assault, and the Neglect Petitions eventually brought against her by ACS, which resulted in her three children being removed. On October 3, 2014, Defendants filed their fully briefed motion to dismiss. (Not. of Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 32).) For the reasons stated below, the court construes the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. CONVERSION INTO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

"If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). "The essential inquiry" in deciding whether it is proper to treat a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment "is whether the non-movant 'should reasonably have recognized the possibility that the motion might be converted into one for summary judgment or was taken by surprise and deprived of a reasonable opportunity to meet facts outside the pleadings.'" Krijn v. Pogue Simone Real Estate Co., 896 F.2d 687, 689 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Pharm. Mfrs., Inc. v. Ayerst Labs., 850 F.2d. 904, 911 (2d Cir. 1988)); see also Lawrence v. City of Rochester, No. 09-CV-6078 (FPG), 2015 WL 510048, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2015). When both parties request that evidence outside the pleadings be considered, the risk of surprise or a party being deprived of a reasonable opportunity to meet the facts is low and conversion to summary judgment is proper. See Gurary v. Winehouse, 190 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[I]t was plaintiff who submitted the affidavit relied upon by the district court and who thus invited [the district court] to rely not only on the complaint, but upon the more elaborate explication of plaintiff's grievance contained in his affidavit. He certainly cannot be heard to claim that he was surprised when the district court accepted his invitation."); see also Facciolo v. City of New York, No. 09-CV-1332 (DGT) (JMA), 2010 WL 3155251, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2010) ("In this case, by including an affidavit with their opposition papers and by explicitly recognizing the possibility of conversion in those papers, plaintiffs should have been aware of the likelihood of conversion."); Roberts v.Phillips, No. 06-CV-2866 (LAP) (THK), 2009 WL 3241525, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009).

Here, Plaintiff appended over 100 pages of materials to her Amended Complaint. Although Defendants suggested that the court could still treat their motion as a motion to dismiss, they alternatively, "request[ed] that the Court convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment and decide the case based on the documents annexed to the Amended Complaint." (Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. ("Defs.' Mem.") (Dkt. 33) at 5 n.4.) Defendants also annexed their own exhibit to the memorandum. (Id. at ECF pp. 36-39.) Moreover, Defendants notified Plaintiff that their motion to dismiss could be converted by the court into a motion for summary judgment and accordingly, she should respond with evidence. (See Not. to Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Rule 12 Mot. Supported By Matters Outside the Pleadings (Dkt. 34).) Plaintiff responded by annexing additional evidence to her opposition brief (Exs. (Mem in Supp. of Pl.'s Am. Compl. ("Pl.'s Mem.") (Dkt. 31), Exs. 1-2 (Dkts. 31-1, 2)), and requesting that the court review "all paperwork" in making its decision (Pl.'s Mem. at 2). Accordingly, the court deems it proper to convert Defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

The facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint and the exhibits thereto, the Notice of Amended Complaint, and the exhibits to both Plaintiff's and Defendants' briefs submitted in connection with Defendants' motions. Except as otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. Where facts are in dispute, the court credits Slater's version of the particular fact, ifsupported by record evidence.¹ The court has not included in this section facts introduced by the parties that are not material to Slater's claims.

1. The Arrest of Plaintiff

On June 1, 2012, the Statewide Central Register ("SCR") received a call concerning "safety concerns of Lacerations Bruises Welts Inadequate Guardianship [sic]." (Investigation Progress Notes (Am. Compl., Ex. F. (Dkt. 16-1)) at ECF p. 29; see also id. at ECF p. 39.) The caller stated that on May 24, 2012, Slater became upset with her daughter, A.F.² and "slapped her in the face, punched her in the face and threw her on the floor" in the presence of Slater's other two children. (Id. at ECF p. 29.) The caller alleged that A.F. suffered bruising to her left eye and one of her arms. (Id.) The caller further indicated that A.F.'s injuries had not been observed until June 1 because A.F. had been kept out of school from May 24 until June 1 and Slater had taken A.F.'s phone. (Id. at ECF p. 31.) The caller alleged that Slater had a history with child protective services in Florida, where she previously lived. (Id.)

In response to the tip, ACS went to Slater's home to investigate the allegations. (Id.) ACS arrived at Slater's home on June 1 at 4:05 p.m. (Id.) At some point the NYPD was summoned. (Id.) Both ACS and the Police Defendants interviewed A.F. (Am. Compl. at ECF p. 4; see also Not. of Am. Compl. (Dkt. 15) at ¶ 1.) Following the interview, the Police Defendants asked Slater to accompany them to the precinct in order to continue the investigation. (Am. Compl. at ECF p. 4.) Slater responded by asking what the investigation concerned andwhether she was being arrested; the Police Defendants did not respond. (Id.) Slater then tried to re-enter the home and make a phone call. (Id.) In response, Detective Young "blocked Plaintiff's pathway" back into the home and "scream[ed] in Plaintiff's face acting as if he was going to hit her if she tried to take another step." (Id.) Slater ultimately went to the precinct. (Id.)

At the precinct, A.F. and G.T.—two of Slater's children—were interviewed. (Investigation Progress Notes at ECF p. 32; see also Not. of Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) Both interviews occurred at 4:30 p.m. (Investigation Progress Notes at ECF pp. 32-33.) A.F. told both ACS and the NYPD that on May 24, 2012:

"[S]he was in the car with her mother and her mother slapped her across the left side of her face and injured her left eye. She said mother continued to hit her when they got in the house. Child said she tried to hide under a desk in her room but her mother hit her with a belt and her fist. A.F. said she hit her head on the floor but her mother continued to hit her. She said she heard her little sisters crying and one of them tried to help her but the mother pushed the sister out of the way and continued to hit her."

(Id. at ECF p. 32.) A.F. further stated that "her mother also had a [child protective services] case in Florida and she believed her mother may have mental health issues because she heard the CPS worker in Florida ask her mother if she took her medication." (Id.) Finally, she stated that "when CPS came to the home . . . her mother started telling [G.T.] to lie and say she was injured by a cousin." (Id.) The Police Defendants observed that A.F. had a "bruise and red line under her left eye, bruises on her rights arm and a bruise on her left thigh, close to her knee." (Id. at ECF p. 33.) G.T. indicated that "nothing really" happened at home on May 24, 2012. (Id.) She could not explain the bruising on A.F.'s arm and leg. (Id.) ACS's interview records state that "it was obvious that [G.T] was lying and she seemed nervous." (Id. at ECF p. 34.)

At the same time that A.F. and G.T. were being interviewed, Slater was also interviewed at the precinct. (Id. at ECF p. 35.) Slater was told that she was being interviewed "regarding injuries to [A.F]." (Id.) She responded that she "don't [sic] hit my children at all." (Id.) She was then informed by Detective Mackey that she was being arrested for second degree assault. (Id.)

At 5:35 p.m. on June 1, 2012, Slater was arrested at the precinct. (Am Compl. at ECF p. 4 ("When Plaintiff arrived to the precint [sic] and after the Defendants spoke with Plaintiff's children and the Plaintiff, Plaintiff was arrested and taken to jail."); Webcrims Case Details - Summary (Am. Compl., Ex. B (Dkt. 16-1)) at ECF p. 15 (indicating the time of the arrest).) Slater was charged with various crimes including robbery and numerous charges offenses to the assault of A.F. (the "A.F. Assault Charges"). (Am. Compl. at ECF p. 4, 6, 7; Webcrims Case Details - Charges (Am. Compl., Ex. B (Dkt. 16-1)) a...