Walker v. Raja

• Decision Date: 07 February 2020
• Docket Number: 17-CV-5202 (PKC) (LB)
• Parties: MICHAEL TRACY WALKER, Plaintiff, v. POLICE OFFICER TAIMUR RAJA, POLICE OFFICER DAVID VAZQUEZ, POLICE OFFICER ESTHARLIN LOPEZ, POLICE OFFICER KYLE BROWN, POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM CHOW, POLICE OFFICER ELISA BATTISTA, SERGEANT SAZEDUR RAHMAN, and the CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

MICHAEL TRACY WALKER, Plaintiff, v. POLICE OFFICER TAIMUR RAJA,POLICE OFFICERDAVID VAZQUEZ,POLICE OFFICERESTHARLIN LOPEZ,POLICE OFFICERKYLE BROWN,POLICE OFFICERWILLIAM CHOW,POLICE OFFICERELISA BATTISTA,SERGEANT SAZEDUR RAHMAN,and the CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

17-CV-5202 (PKC) (LB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 7, 2020

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

PlaintiffMichael Tracy Walker brings this pro se action against Defendants Police Officer Taimur Raja, Police Officer David Vazquez, Police Officer Estharlin Lopez, Police Officer Kyle Brown, Police Officer William Chow, Police Officer Elisa Battista, Sergeant Sazedur Rahman, and the City of New York, advancing multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related claims under New York law, in connection with Plaintiff's January 2017 apprehension and arrest.Currently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I.Facts

On January 8, 2017, Plaintiff entered Kangan Jewelers, locatedat 1058 Coney Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, at the corner of Foster Avenue and Avenue H. (Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement¹ of Material Facts ("Defs.'56.1"), Dkt. 112, ¶ 1.)Plaintiff was carrying a firearm and intended to steal jewelry from the store at gunpoint.(Id.;see alsoDeposition of Michael Tracy Walker ("Dep. Walker"), Dkt. 114-1, at 43:5-17, 44:16-24.)After entering the store, Plaintiff took jewelry while threatening the store owner, Mr. Iqbal, and the store employee, Ms. Parveen, with the gun.(Defs.' 56.1, Dkt. 112, ¶ 2.)In an attempt to restrain Plaintiff, Mr. Iqbal grabbed Plaintiff's upper body.(Id.¶ 3.)Plaintiff then used his firearm to strike Mr. Iqbal in the head.(Id.¶ 4.)Plaintiff fled the store by kicking and slamming his body against the locked glass door, causing it to shatter onto his body.(Id.¶¶ 6-7.)Plaintiff exited the store with the jewelry and his firearm (id.¶ 8), but Mr. Iqbal followed Plaintiff and wrestled him to the ground on the sidewalk outside (id.¶ 9).Plaintiff and Mr. Iqbal struggled and exchanged blows until several civilian bystanders intervened, grabbed Plaintiff, hit him, and positioned him face-down on the pavement, as he resisted their efforts to restrain him.(Id.¶¶ 10-12;Dep. Walker, Dkt. 114-1, at 62:1-25.)

In the meantime, Ms. Parveen and other civilians had called 911 to report both the robbery and Mr. Iqbal's injuries.(Defs.' 56.1, Dkt. 112, ¶¶ 5, 16.)At about 8:26 p.m., several police officers from the New York City Police Department("NYPD") arrived at the scene.(Id.¶ 17.)NYPD officers, including Defendants Vazquez and Raja, held Plaintiff down and attempted to pull his hands behind his back in order to handcuff him.(Id.¶¶ 18-20.)In an effort to subdue Plaintiff, an officer struck Plaintiff several times.(Id.¶¶ 19-20.)Plaintiff testified that the first officer to approach him was a female officer² with a "ponytail [o]n the back of her head," who "began repeatedly punching" him in the face.(Dep. Walker, Dkt. 114-1, at 65:18-20, 66:19-22, 67:2-4.)According to Plaintiff, "multiple people[were] striking [him] at one time."(Id. at 69:5-7.)

Plaintiff was taken to the 70th Precinct and ultimately charged with, inter alia, Robbery, Assault, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Weapon, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property.(Defs.' 56.1, Dkt. 112, ¶¶ 24, 26.)Plaintiff subsequently pled guilty to the charge of Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree³ and was sentenced to a term of 12 years to life, as a "Persistent Violent Felony Offender," along with a 20-year order of protection to refrain from contact with Mr. Iqbal and Ms. Parveen.(Id.¶¶ 28-29.)

Prior to January 8, 2017, Plaintiff had been diagnosed with advanced glaucoma and distorted vision.(Id.¶ 15; Dep. Walker, Dkt. 114-1, at 89:20-90:19.)On the night of the robbery, after his altercation with Mr. Iqbal and the group of civilians, Plaintiff's vision became more blurred.(Defs.' 56.1, Dkt. 112, ¶ 13.)Sometime after January 8, 2017, Plaintiff's vision became totally impaired.(Id.¶ 14.)

On or about May 12, 2017, Plaintiff fled a Notice of Claim with the New York State Office of the Comptroller concerning state law claims arising from his January 2017 arrest.(Id.¶ 30.)The Comptroller's Office informed Plaintiff on or about May 24, 2017 that his claim was disallowed as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days from the date of his January 8, 2017 arrest.(Id.¶ 31.)

II.Procedural History

Plaintiff commenced this action on or about August 22, 2017 in the Southern District of New York.(Dkt. 1.)Plaintiff's initial complaint alleged, inter alia, claims of excessive force under § 1983 and related state law claims against Defendants Raja, Vazquez, Lopez, Brown, and the City of New York.(Complaint, Dkt. 2.)On September 5, 2017, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of New York.(Dkt. 5.)The case was stayed by Order dated November 6, 2017, pending resolution of the Civilian Complaint Review Board's ("CCRB") investigation into the underlying incident.(Dkt. 21.)Plaintiff amended his initial complaint on November 13, 2017 to include claims of deprivation of federal civil rights, municipal liability, and failure to intervene.(Amended Complaint, Dkt. 22.)On August 7, 2018, the stay was lifted (Dkt. 51), and, as discovery progressed, Plaintiff submitted a "proposed amended complaint" on October 31, 2018, adding Sergeant Rahman and Police Officers Chow and Battista as Defendants(Dkts. 61, 62).Plaintiff re-filed his proposed amended complaint as an amended complaint—effectively his Second Amended Complaint—on November 26, 2018.(Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Dkt. 66.)Plaintiff was deposed on December 3, 2018.(Dep. Walker, Dkt. 114-1.)

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment.(Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment("Pl.'s Mot."), Dkt. 73.)By Order dated January 4, 2019, the Court construed his motion as a request for a pre-motion conference.Defendants, in turn, requested a pre-motion conference for their anticipated summary judgment motion on February 1, 2019.(Dkt. 83.)A pre-motion conference was held on March 6, 2019, at which the Court set a briefing schedule for both parties' proposed motions for summary judgment, which were fully briefed on July 8, 2019.(Dkts. 73, 110, 117.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where the submissions of the parties, taken together, "show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);see alsoAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52(1986)(noting that summary judgment inquiry is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law").A dispute of fact is "genuine" if "the [record] evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

The initial burden of "establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact" rests with the moving party.Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Dep't, 613 F.3d 336, 340(2d Cir.2010).Once this burden is met, however, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to put forward some evidence establishing the existence of a question of fact that must be resolved at trial.Spinelli v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 160, 166-67(2d Cir.2009);see alsoCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23(1986).A mere "scintilla of evidence" in support of the non-moving party is insufficient; rather, "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant]."Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733, 743(2d Cir.2003)(quotingAnderson, 477 U.S. at 252).In other words, "[t]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156, 160(2d Cir.2002)(internal quotation and emphasis omitted).

When assessing whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party.Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 309(2d Cir.2008).The Court also construes any disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.SeeAdickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157-59(1970).However, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment."Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48."The same standard of review applies when the court is faced with [a]cross-motion[] for summary judgment."Lauria v. Heffernan, 607 F. Supp. 2d 403, 407(E.D.N.Y.2009)(internal quotation omitted).When evaluating cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court reviews each party's motion on its own merits and draws all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration.SeeMorales v. Quintel Entm't, Inc., 249 F.3d 115, 121(2d Cir.2001).

In considering a dispositive motion brought or defended by a pro se litigant, the Court must "liberally construe" the pro separty's pleadings in his favor and hold him to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10(1980)(internal quotation and ellipsis omitted);see alsoBertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491(2d Cir.2007)("[The Second Circuit] liberally construe[s] pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest."(internal quotation and citations omitted)).Nonethel...