Sulehria v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 23 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 05 Civ. 4486 (SHS).,05 Civ. 4486 (SHS). |
| Citation | 670 F.Supp.2d 288 |
| Parties | Iqbal Naz SULEHRIA, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Steven A. Morelli, P.C., Carle Place, NY, for Plaintiff.
Ivan A. Mendez, Jr., NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, Pamela Susan Roth, Law Office of Pamela S. Roth, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Iqbal Naz Sulehria brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his constitutional rights under various statutes. While not specifically pled by plaintiffs attorney in the amended complaint, Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger also inferred a conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 from the facts alleged. All claims stem from Sulehria's employment as a legal coordinator for defendant New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"). After several years of motion practice and discovery, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on August 18, 2008.
On October 13, 2009, Judge Dolinger issued a report recommending that defendants' motion be granted for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, except to the extent that defendants' motion sought dismissal of any conspiracy claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Defendants filed timely objections to that Report and Recommendation on November 13, 2009. After de novo review of the Report and Recommendation as well as defendants' objections thereto, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C), the Court accepts Judge Dolinger's Report and Recommendation except to the extent that it recommends denial of the motion for summary judgment with respect to any conspiracy claim. As to any claim for conspiracy, the motion for summary judgment is also granted. The Court writes here to set forth its conclusion that defendants timely challenged Sulehria's lack of evidentiary support for any conspiracy claim in both their opening and reply briefs on this motion. Because the facts—resolving all ambiguities and drawing all factual inferences in favor of Sulehria pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 56—do not support a claim for conspiracy pursuant to section 1983 or section 1985, defendants' motion for summary judgment on any conspiracy claim is granted.
The Court has addressed—and partially rejected—conspiracy claims inferred from Sulehria's pleadings before. In his Report and Recommendation dated October 31, 2006, Judge Dolinger, responding to a preemptive argument offered by defendants in support of that motion to dismiss, inferred conspiracy claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 from Sulehria's pleadings. (See Report and Recommendation dated Oct. 31, 2006 at 29-30.) Judge Dolinger recommended granting defendants' motion and dismissing any such claims brought pursuant to section 1983 at that time because Sulehria offered mere conclusory allegations in the complaint. However, he recommended denial of the motion to dismiss any conspiracy claims that Sulehria may have intended to bring pursuant to section 1985. This Court adopted that Report and Recommendation on December 22, 2006 and dismissed, inter alia, all conspiracy claims brought pursuant to section 1983 with prejudice.
Sulehria does not include a specific cause of action for conspiracy—pursuant to either section 1983 or section 1985—in his amended complaint. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, defendants included a brief argument for the dismissal of a conspiracy claim in their opening brief in support of their motion for partial summary judgment. Specifically, defendants argued that
[i]n Magistrate Judge Dolinger's Report and Recommendation, dated October 31, 2006, which was adopted by the Court on December 22, 2006, all plaintiffs conspiracy claims under section 1983 were dismissed with prejudice.... Thus, to the extent plaintiff purports to now assert claims of conspiracy under sections 1983, he again fails to state a claim. See, e.g., Fulani v. McAuliffe, No. 04-Civ.-6973 , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20400, at *14, *19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2005) ().
(Defs.' Mem. at 22.) In response to some combination of this argument and defendants' argument regarding Monell liability, plaintiffs attorney asserted in his opposition brief that "certain individuals made comments to the effect that they have to ban[d] together to get rid of Plaintiff because of his membership in those protected classes or that they were acting in concert in order to do so." (Pl.'s Mem. at 17.) In support of this statement, he cites to portions of plaintiffs Counter-Statement of Undisputed Facts that allege that one defendant " (Pl.'s Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts ("Pl.'s 56.1") ¶ 68); that one unnamed DOC employee told another unnamed DOC employee "to leave Plaintiffs complaints pertaining to inmates alone—that `we are not writing up any inmate for this fucking muslim shit,' referring to Plaintiff (id. ¶ 82); and that Sulehria observed defendants Murdaugh and Triplett preparing "a sign on the computer regarding Plaintiff and then `posting' it on his briefcase" (id. ¶ 85).
In reply, defendants then reiterated their previous contention that Sulehria appears to argue that a conspiracy existed to deprive him of his constitutional rights in violation of section 1983, whereas he should bring any conspiracy claim pursuant to section 1985. (Defs.' Reply Mem. at 8.) In addition, defendants argue that
`a plaintiff must provide some factual basis supporting a meeting of the minds, such that defendants entered into an agreement, express or tacit, to achieve the unlawful end.'...
In opposition, plaintiff puts forward no evidence to demonstrate a conspiracy. Rather, he claims without a single supporting affidavit that comments were made to indicate a conspiracy.
(Defs.' Reply Mem. at 8.) Judge Dolinger rejected defendants' argument, not on the basis that Sulehria had proffered any evidentiary support for a conspiracy claim, but rather simply because defendants had raised the issue of a lack of evidentiary support for any conspiracy claim only in their reply brief, thus depriving Sulehria of an opportunity to respond. (See Report and Recommendation dated Oct. 13, 2009 at 63-64.) The Court disagrees. Defendants' argument in reply differs only in depth—not in content—from that offered in their opening brief, which itself was simply insurance should Judge Dolinger infer a conspiracy claim that plaintiff had not even set forth in the amended complaint. (See Defs.' Objections at 6.)
Moreover, defendants' arguments as to why summary judgment should be granted apply with equal force to conspiracy claims that could be inferred pursuant to either section 1983 or section 1985, since both causes of action require a plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy. See Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324-24 (2d Cir.2002) (); Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 791 (2d Cir.2007) (). As defendants noted first in their opening brief and again in reply, Sulehria provides no factual support whatsoever that demonstrates an agreement between defendants to act against him in an unlawful manner as required to succeed on a claim of conspiracy.
Because defendants added only detail, rather than new substance, to their—ultimately correct—argument in support of summary judgment for any claims of conspiracy that might be read into Sulehria's amended complaint, the Court accepts those arguments, grants defendants' motion for summary judgment on any conspiracy claims, and dismisses those conspiracy claims.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Judge Dolinger's Report and Recommendation dated October 13, 2009 is adopted except to the extent that this Court finds that Sulehria has proffered no evidentiary support for any claims for conspiracy that might be inferred from his amended complaint. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted in its entirety for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and in this Order.
SO ORDERED:
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Iqbal Naz Sulehria is employed by the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC") as a legal coordinator. He has commenced four separate lawsuits in this court between 2002 and 2006, all now consolidated into one, to complain that the Department and numerous officials and employees of the DOC have discriminated against him because of his religion and national origin and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. City of N.Y.
...factor was at least one of the motivating factors.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sulehria v. City of New York, 670 F.Supp.2d 288, 305 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“To prevail on a Title VII claim for disparate treatment based on ... religion, plaintiff must demonstrate that he was s......
-
Russell v. County of Nassau
...that Plaintiff's speech was not on a matter of public concern. To quote Judge Stein's recent decision in Sulehria v. City of New York, 670 F.Supp.2d 288 (S.D.N.Y.2009), Plaintiff's union grievances, EEOC complaint and his state court consist mostly of instances of alleged hostility and mist......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Bloomberg L.P.
...Project Hospitality, Inc., No. 07–CV–2085 (RRM)(RML), 2009 WL 3232856, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009); see also Sulehria v. City of N.Y., 670 F.Supp.2d 288, 305 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“Direct evidence that the adverse employment action was motivated by discrimination, ‘a smoking gun,’ is typicall......
-
ALLEN v. MATTINGLY
..."deliberate indifference" to the rights of those who come in contact with the municipal employees. See, e.g. Sulehria v. City of New York. 670 F.Supp.2d 288, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 16 With respect to Eras, plaintiff alleges: (1) that he violated her right to a fair trial by objecting to her f......