Valentin v. City of Rochester
| Decision Date | 30 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-6238CJS |
| Parties | HECTOR L. VALENTIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Plaintiff Hector L. Valentin ("Valentin") filed his original pro se Complaint over five years ago on May 3, 2011 (the "Complaint").1 (Docket # 1). The action asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 against the City of Rochester, the Rochester Police Department, and various individuals employed by the City of Rochester (collectively, the "City Defendants"), and the County of Monroe, the Monroe County District Attorney's Office, and various individuals employed by Monroe County (collectively, the "County Defendants"), arising out of a 2001 criminal prosecution against him for a robbery that occurred on February 29, 2000 (the "February 2000 robbery"). (Id.). The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants violated their obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose exculpatory information to plaintiff, namely, the criminal records of two witnesses who testified at trial and one non-testifying witness. (Id.).
The Complaint is approximately sixty pages and attaches exhibits totaling approximately ninety pages. (Docket # 1). Following defendants' service of their Answers, this Court held a scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and issued a scheduling order. (Docket ## 15, 16). The scheduling order provided, among other deadlines, a deadline of April 19, 2012, for any motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties. (Docket # 15). Various deadlines in the original scheduling order were thereafter extended at the parties' request, but the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties was not extended. (See Docket ## 19, 24).
On June 5, 2014, the County Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety. (Docket # 68). In their motion, the County Defendants maintained that they were immune from suit and that Valentin's Monell claim and Section 1985 and 1986 claims were inadequately pleaded. (Docket # 68-2). At Valentin's request, the district court stayed the motion pending resolution of various discovery disputes. (Docket ## 71, 72).
Approximately one week later, Valentin indicated for the first time his intent to amend his complaint. (Docket # 71). Specifically, in his motion seeking an order staying the Court's consideration of the County Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, Valentin made a single sentence request "[t]hat the Court grant permission to the [p]laintiff to amend his complaint based on new information that has come to light since it was last filed on May 3, 2011." (Id. at 8). On July 1, 2014, the Court denied without prejudice Valentin's request to amend because he had failed to comply with applicable rules requiring a demonstration of good cause and the submission of a proposed amended complaint. (Docket # 74 at 2).
About six weeks later, on July 31, 2014, the City Defendants filed a motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Complaint in its entirety. (Docket # 84). Specifically, the City Defendants maintained that Valentin failed to plead the requisite scienter to state a Section 1983 claim against the police officer defendants and that he failed to plead that any conduct of the officers caused the Brady violation. (Docket # 84-12 at 7-12). Additionally, the City Defendants contended that the Complaint failed to state a claim for negligent training against former police chiefs David Moore ("Moore") and James Sheppard ("Sheppard") because neither of them had served as police chief during the relevant period and, in any event, Valentin had only identified a single Brady violation, which was an insufficient basis on which to state a negligent training claim. (Id. at 12-13). Finally, the City Defendants maintained that Valentin had not adequately stated Section 1985 and 1986 claims because he had not sufficiently alleged the elements of a conspiracy.2 (Id. at 13). The district court likewise stayed this motion at Valentin's request pending resolution of outstanding discovery disputes. (Docket ## 88, 91).
Approximately one week later, Valentin again sought leave to amend the Complaint, this time attaching a proposed amended complaint to his motion. (Docket ## 84, 87). His proposed amended complaint (the "August 2014 Complaint") was seventy-five pages and attached the same ninety pages of exhibits that were attached to the original complaint. With respect to the good cause requirement, Valentin simply stated, "My original complaint is now outdated due to new information that has come to my attention that is pertinent to the liability proof of my claims and support [ ] my contentions that the defendants violated my due process civil rights." (Docket # 87 at 2, ¶ 1).
While that motion to amend was pending, this Court resolved several discovery-related motions. (Docket ## 45, 55, 67, 80, 81). Although the motions raised several issues, the salient disputes resolved by the Court included whether the County and City Defendants were required to produce documents relating to John Kemp ("Kemp") and Sarah Bower ("Bower"), the two individuals who testified at Valentin's criminal trial, and whether they were required to produce documents relating to their Brady training manuals, policies, and procedures. (Docket # 101 at 8-9). The Court ordered the defendants to search for and produce any sealed or unsealed documents reflecting knowledge of Kemp's and Bower's criminal histories and any Brady policies and training materials. (Id. at 10-13). Defendants supplemented their discovery responses pursuant to the Court's order on December 8 and 9, 2014. (Docket ## 105-11). The supplemental document production consisted of more than 1,500 pages. (Docket ## 107, 108, 110, 111).
On March 12, 2015, the Court denied Valentin's August 2014 motion to amend without prejudice on the grounds that he had failed to demonstrate good cause for seeking leave to amend more than two years after the expiration of the deadline for such motions. (Docket # 123). The Court noted, however, that defendants had only recently responded "to many long-overdue discovery requests served on them by plaintiff" and afforded Valentin until April 10, 2015, to file a motion addressing the good cause showing necessary to his request for leave to amend. (Id. at 4-5). The Court instructed Valentin that any additional motion to amend had to articulate clearly the precise amendments that he was proposing. (Id.).
On April 10, 2015, Valentin filed another motion seeking to amend his Complaint. (Docket # 124). That motion attached a more than one hundred-page proposed amended complaint (the "April 2015 Complaint"). (Docket ## 124-2, 124-3). Attached to theApril 2015 Complaint were twenty-eight exhibits consisting of about ninety more pages. (Docket # 124-3). Some of those exhibits had been attached to previous versions of the complaint, while others had not. Several of the new exhibits were apparently among those produced by defendants in December 2014. (Compare Docket ## 107-1 at ¶ 1; 110-2 at 8; 110-7 at 18-20 with Docket # 124-3 at Exhibits ("Exs.") 1-7, 9). Among other amendments, Valentin sought leave to add Monroe County Investigator J. Rodriquez ("Rodriquez")3 as a defendant in the action. (Docket # 124 at 6-8).
While that motion was under advisement, on February 29, 2016, Valentin filed the pending motion to amend. (Docket ## 138, 139). This proposed amended complaint (the "February 2016 Complaint") is also approximately one hundred pages long and attaches the same exhibits that were attached to the April 2015 Complaint. (Docket # 139). In the motion, Valentin sought to withdraw his earlier motion to amend and to replace that motion with his newly-filed motion to amend. (Docket # 138 at 1-3). A review of Valentin's submission suggested that he was seeking leave to add one additional defendant, Rochester Police Department Investigator Gary Sullivan ("Sullivan"), who had not been included in the April 2015 Complaint. (Id.). The Court granted Valentin's request to withdraw his April 2015 motion to amend and to proceed instead on his February 2016 motion to amend. (Docket # 140).
Valentin's submissions in support of his request to amend his complaint are lengthy, verbose, and sometimes unclear. (Docket # 138). Given Valentin's pro se status, this Court has reviewed his submissions and expended substantial effort to attempt to identify and understand the amendments he seeks to make. This Court's review of the February 2016 Complaint and Valentin's submissions suggest that the purpose of his motion to amend istwo-fold: first, to correct deficiencies identified in defendants' dispositive motion; and, second, to add factual allegations and defendants based upon the discovery produced in December 2014.
A comparison of the Complaint with the proposed complaint demonstrates that Valentin seeks to make substantial changes to the Complaint, largely in an attempt to avoid dismissal of his claims. (Compare Docket # 1 with Docket # 139). Requested amendments that appear designed to address defendants' arguments and to avoid dismissal include:
To continue reading
Request your trial