Sullivan v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17 Civ. 3779 (KPF) |
| Parties | SEAN SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER THOMAS BASERAP, Shield No. 10601, POLICE OFFICER GREGORY RITTENHOUSE, Shield No. 16173, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE #2, 3, 4, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Sean Sullivan was arrested on May 16, 2016, for an assault that Plaintiff maintains he did not commit, and for which ultimately he was not prosecuted. Now proceeding pro se, Plaintiff asserts that he was wrongfully detained, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. He alleges deprivations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the form of false arrest, excessive force, false imprisonment, failure to intervene, and illegal search and seizure. Plaintiff also brings a municipal-liability claim, under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), against the City of New York. Finally, Plaintiff advances state-law causes of action, including false arrest; false imprisonment; fraud and conspiracy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence/failure to train; and violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Article I of the New York Constitution.
Pending before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Police Officer Thomas Baserap, Police Officer Gregory Rittenhouse (together with Baserap, the "Individual Defendants"), and the City of New York (together with the Individual Defendants, the "Moving Defendants"). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Moving Defendants' motion.1
On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff visited a Barnes & Noble bookstore in the Citicorp Center on Third Avenue and 54th Street in Manhattan. (Am. Compl. ¶ 21). As he sat in the bookstore's café, an employee of the Hillstonerestaurant, also located in the Citicorp Center, approached Plaintiff. (Id.). The employee asked Plaintiff whether he had left his bag in the Hillstone restaurant. (Id.). Plaintiff told the Hillstone employee that he had never been to the Hillstone and asked the employee not to disturb him, a request to which the man acceded. (Id.).
Shortly thereafter, a group of NYPD officers, including the Individual Defendants, approached Plaintiff. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22). They first asked Plaintiff to join them so they could "discuss something." (Id.). Plaintiff declined to do so. (Id.). The officers then insisted that Plaintiff leave with them, and Plaintiff obliged, following the officers into the lobby of the Citicorp Center. (Id.). There, the officers told Plaintiff that they were investigating a crime that had taken place at the Hillstone restaurant. (Id.). They asked Plaintiff if he knew anything about the crime. (Id.). Plaintiff told them he had no relevant information, and that he had never been to the restaurant. (Id.).
One of the police officers, whom Plaintiff believes to have been Defendant Thomas Baserap, suggested that Plaintiff was lying. (Am. Compl. ¶ 23). The officer then told Plaintiff that he was a suspect in the crime they were investigating. (Id.). The officer further stated "that there were witnesses who identified the Plaintiff, that there was video footage of the Plaintiff committing the crime, and that the Plaintiff needed to confess." (Id.). Plaintiff denied any involvement in the crime and told the officers "in no uncertain terms that he ha[d] no idea what they were talking about and that they should leave him alone as he ha[d] committed no crime." (Id.). Still, the officers "continued toberate the Plaintiff, proceeded to handcuff [him], and detained him at the entrance of the Barnes [&] Noble[.]" (Id.).
At some point, while Plaintiff was still in handcuffs, Baserap instructed Plaintiff to move to a corner of the Barnes & Noble entrance to avoid the crowds. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25). He asked Plaintiff to sit down, but Plaintiff's "hands were handcuffed so tight behind his back that abrasions were forming on his wrists which prevented him from being able to move his body and he thereby could not physically comply with the demand that he sit on the floor." (Id.). When Plaintiff tried to explain, "one or more of the Police Officer Defendants tripped [Plaintiff's] legs from under him, all while the Plaintiff was handcuffed, and forced him violently to the floor." (Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that he was detained in this "outrageous manner," even though "there was no threat or danger of the Plaintiff leaving ... if the[ officers] had simply asked him to remain where he was earlier[.]" (Am. Compl. ¶ 26). Without any justification, the officers "humiliat[ed] the Plaintiff and creat[ed] a pointless public spectacle of the Plaintiff manacled and held down in a public venue." (Id.). This, despite Plaintiff's statements to the officers that "a quick examination of any security camera footage would show that the Plaintiff was nowhere near th[e] Hillstone restaurant when the 'crime' supposedly occurred[.]" (Id.).
Plaintiff states, "[u]pon information and belief, [that he] was the only black male sitting in the Barnes [&] Noble café at the time the Police Officer Defendants approached him." (Am Compl. ¶ 26). He further claims that theNYPD has engaged in a pattern and practice of targeting minorities without reasonable suspicion, between at least August 2013 and November 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 31-34). Plaintiff alleges that, while he was detained, officers searched his person and backpack without consent. (Id. at ¶ 27). At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was homeless, and substantially all of his belongings were in his backpack. (Id.). Yet the police officers "rummaged through the Plaintiff's bags and inspected his belongings for no valid purpose but presumably to embarrass [him.]" (Id.).
The officers released Plaintiff after approximately one hour. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28). Plaintiff "was never read his Miranda rights, he was never told clearly what 'crime' he was being held for, none of the Police Officer Defendants clearly identified themselves to the Plaintiff, and he was told conflicting stories by the Police Officer Defendants of being both a 'witness' and a 'suspect.'" (Id.). Plaintiff believes that he may have been "targeted in retaliation for his past lawsuits against the NYPD." (Am. Compl. ¶ 29).
After the police officers released Plaintiff, he went to the Hillstone restaurant to inquire into the alleged crime. (Am. Compl. ¶ 30). He "asked a hostess at the door whether a crime was committed earlier ... and she told the Plaintiff that she was unaware of any crime." (Id.). Determined to investigate further, Plaintiff went to the local precinct and asked a police officer whether the Hillstone restaurant had been the scene of a crime earlier that day. (Id.). The officer told Plaintiff that "she was unaware of any criminal activity at the Hillstone restaurant that day." (Id.).
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on May 18, 2017. (Dkt. #2). On June 2, 2017, the Court issued an order pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), requiring the New York City Law Department ("Law Department") to ascertain the identities and badge numbers of various John Doe Defendants whom Plaintiff had named in the Complaint. (Dkt. #5). The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days of receiving the information from the Law Department. (Id.). On August 1, 2017, the Law Department filed a letter listing service addresses for the two Individual Defendants. (Dkt. #7). That day, the Court issued an Order of Service, directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service of Plaintiff's Complaint on these Individual Defendants.
On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. #13). On September 19, 2017, the Court issued another Order of Service, directing the Marshals Service to effect service on the two Individual Defendants. (Dkt. #14). The Court also dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against then-Defendants Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. and John Doe #1. (Id.). On January 25, 2018, the Court held a pre-motion conference to discuss the Moving Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. #30). Moving Defendants filed said motion on February 23, 2018 (Dkt. #32-34); Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on May 3, 2018 (Dkt. #43); and Moving Defendants filed their reply brief on May 16, 2018 (Dkt. #44).
Plaintiff's claims can be grouped into three categories. The first consists of Plaintiff's § 1983 claims: false arrest, excessive force, false imprisonment, failure to intervene, and illegal search and seizure. The second is Plaintiff's municipal-liability claim under Monell. The third includes Plaintiff's state-law causes of action, including false arrest; false imprisonment; fraud and conspiracy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence/failure to train; and violations of Article I, Sections 11 and 12 of the New York Constitution. After a brief discussion of the applicable law, the Court addresses the claims in turn.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court should "draw all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2009)). Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 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 Twombly does not require heightened fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial