Vessa v. City of White Plains
| Decision Date | 27 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | 12-CV-6989 (ER) |
| Parties | FRANK VESSA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE LT. ERIC FISCHER, CHIEF BRADLEY, POLICE OFFICERS "JOHN DOE and MARY DOE 1-10," said names being fictitious and presently unknown, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, and "JOHN ROE and MARY ROE 1-10," said names being fictitious and presently unknown, persons intended being assistant district attorneys and/or personnel of WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Ramos, D.J.:
Plaintiff Frank Vessa ("Plaintiff" or "Vessa") brings this action against Defendants the City of White Plains (the "City"), the City of White Plains Police Department ("WPPD"), Detective Lieutenant Eric Fischer ("Fischer"), Chief Bradley ("Bradley"), Police Officers John Doe and Mary Doe 1-10 (the "John Doe Defendants"), Westchester County (the "County"), and John Roe and Mary Roe 1-10 (the "John Roe Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants"), stating claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiff's First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.1 Presently before the Court are the City and County Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docs. 27, 28. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED.
The following facts are taken from the allegations in the Amended Complaint, which the Court accepts as true for purposes of this motion.2 Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106, 108 (2d Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff alleges that on June 21, 2011, officers of the WPPD (i.e., the John Doe Defendants) and "police officers, assistant district attorneys and/or officers" of the County (i.e., the John Roe Defendants) entered Plaintiff's family's residence in Thornwood, New York (the "Residence") "pursuant to a search warrant." Am. Compl. (Doc. 23) ¶¶ 59-67.3 Plaintiff claims that the search warrant was wrongfully obtained by unspecified Defendants on "improper, fraudulent and invalid grounds."4 Id. ¶¶ 68-69. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to thoroughly investigate and corroborate "the credibility of informants [and] complainants" and failed to validate or confirm the information upon which they negligently anderroneously obtained the warrant. Id. ¶ 75. According to Plaintiff, the information upon which Defendants obtained the warrant was fabricated and otherwise based upon conjecture and speculation, and Defendants knew or should have known that the information was false. Id. ¶¶ 76-77. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants wrongfully executed the warrant "during the early morning hours, in the presence . . . of [Plaintiff's] wife and young child and various neighbors and strangers, seriously and severely frightening, terrorizing, humiliating and embarrassing the plaintiff, causing the infliction of emotional and mental distress." Id. ¶ 70.
Plaintiff claims that in executing the warrant, Defendants illegally seized Plaintiff's property, including his electronics, computers, iPad, external hard drive, and four "off-duty" firearms.5 Id. ¶¶ 97-100. Plaintiff further claims that at the time of the alleged illegal search, Defendants told him that his electronics and computers were being seized due to an investigation of Plaintiff concerning three anonymous postings on the Journal News website regarding Mayor Bradley leaving office as Mayor of White Plains. Id. ¶ 158. The comments were posted under the screen name "ltfischer," and included: (i) "You're welcome from the WPPD"; (ii) "Next Up Commissioner Chong GTHO"; and (iii) "Figure it out Yourself." Id.
Subsequent to the search and seizure, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly charged him with criminal offenses "of which he was wholly innocent," causing Plaintiff to be suspended from his employment as a police officer. Id. ¶¶ 107-109. Thereafter, in or around July 2011, the charges against Plaintiff "failed to be verified" and, as a result, Plaintiff's suspension was lifted. Id. ¶¶ 110-111. Plaintiff further claims that Defendants caused an illegal investigation to be initiated against him by various governmental law enforcement agencies. Id. ¶ 143.
Moreover, Plaintiff claims that in or around June and July 2011, Defendants knowingly made false and defamatory statements about him. Id. ¶¶ 125-127. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants—and Defendant Fischer "in particular"—made the following false and defamatory statements: (i) that Plaintiff "was involved in kiddy porn," which was discovered on Plaintiff's computers; (ii) that Plaintiff was a "pedophile"; (iii) that Plaintiff "was guilty of criminal impersonation"; (iv) that Plaintiff "was guilty of forgery"; and (v) that Plaintiff "was having an illicit affair with [a female officer]." Id. ¶¶ 129-134.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), district courts are required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and to draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Famous Horse Inc., 624 F.3d at 108. However, this requirement does not apply to legal conclusions, bare assertions or conclusory allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In order to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. Accordingly, a plaintiff is required to support its claims with sufficient factual allegations to show "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.
Plaintiff brings a Section 1983 claim for alleged violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The crux of Plaintiff's action is that the execution of the search warrant on June 21, 2011 constituted an "unreasonable search and seizure" in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, in that Defendants wrongfully obtained the warrant using fabricated information that Defendants knew or should have known was false. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 68-69, 75-77. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants' actions caused his "speech to be chilled" in violation of his First Amendment rights and constituted an "abuse of process" in violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights.7 Id. ¶¶ 144, 159.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Fischer and Bradley liable for his constitutional claims, those claims are dismissed as against them. Case law is clear that "personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983." Rahman v. Fisher, 607 F. Supp. 2d 580, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, the Amended Complaint is completely devoid of any allegation that Defendants Fischer or Bradley had any involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. Indeed, none of the facts alleged in support of Plaintiff's constitutional claims even reference Defendants Fischer and Bradley by name. Rather, Plaintiff merely repeatedly alleges that the wrongful acts were committed by "defendants, their servants, agents, police officers, detectives, chiefs, district attorney, assistant district attorneys, investigators and/or employees." Such vagueallegations are clearly insufficient to establish "personal involvement" on the part of Defendants Fischer and Bradley and, accordingly, such claims as against them must be dismissed.
In an attempt to avoid dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim against Fischer and Bradley, Plaintiff argues in his opposition papers that "the individual City defendants participated in and facilitated th[e] fraud," acting "in concert with the D.A.'s office from beginning to end" in order to "reach their goal of humiliating plaintiff, suspending him and confiscating his on-duty and personal weapons." Doc. 38 at 4. With respect to Defendant Fischer, Plaintiff claims that Fischer believed that Plaintiff made the anonymous postings under the screen name "ltfischer" and that Fischer opened an Internal Affairs investigation to determine who authored the anonymous postings. Id. at 5. Thus, according to Plaintiff, it is reasonable to assume that Fischer caused the illegal warrant to be issued in order to search Plaintiff's house to determine whether he, in fact, posted the alleged anonymous comments. Id.
In support of this argument, Plaintiff purports to rely upon several extraneous documents, including: (i) a printout from the WPPD indicating that an Internal Affairs investigation was opened by Fischer in March 2011; and (ii) Plaintiff's counsel's affirmation in connection with an earlier, related state-court petition. See Affirmation of Patrick Mullaney ("Mullaney Aff.") (Doc. 35), Exs. M, L. Plaintiff baldly contends, without citation to any case law or specific allegations within the Amended Complaint, that these documents are "incorporated/integral" to the Amended Complaint, and may therefore be considered by the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss. Doc. 38 at 3. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, however, the Court may not consider either of the documents upon which Plaintiff relies. With respect to the WPPD "printout," Mullaney Aff., Ex. M, that document is not referenced anywhere in the Amended Complaint and, thus, cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss. Cf. DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C.,622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial