Washpon v. Parr
| Decision Date | 04 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06 Civ. 2400(NRB).,06 Civ. 2400(NRB). |
| Citation | 561 F.Supp.2d 394 |
| Parties | Kimasia WASHPON, Plaintiff, v. Court Officer Julia PARR, individually and officially; Court Officer Lancer (first name unknown), individually and officially; and Sgt. Green (first name unknown), individually and officially, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jon C. Dupee, Jr., Esq., Dupee & Monroe, P.C., Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff Kimasia Washpon.
Roberta Martin, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants Parr, Lancer and Green.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and also seeking redress under Article I § 11 of the New York State Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, while working as security officers at a Bronx County courthouse, violated her rights by (1) improperly detaining her; (2) illegally searching her belongings; (3) maliciously prosecuting her for disorderly conduct; (4) using excessive force to detain her; (5) quelling her exercise of constitutionally protected speech; and (6) denying her equal protection.
Defendants now move for summary judgment on four grounds: (1) the force used was de minimis; (2) the complaint fails to state a proper First Amendment claim; (3) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) plaintiffs fail to allege any personal involvement of Officer Lancer.
For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On the afternoon of March 31, 2004, Kimasia Washpon traveled from her home in Queens to the Bronx County Criminal Court at 215 East 161 Street in order to retrieve copies of certain court documents for a job that she was applying for.
When members of the public enter the Bronx County Criminal Court, they are guided by a set of ropes down two flights of stairs and onto a line where they are required to pass through metal detectors, or "magnometers."
On the afternoon of March 31, Washpon entered the building, walked down the two flights of stairs, and approached the metal detectors. She gave her handbag to the uniformed court officer in charge of the conveyor belt, and approached another court officer, Officer Julia Parr, who was standing near the metal detector. Washpon informed Officer Parr that the metal detector would likely sound the alarm ("beep") if she walked through. Washpon believed she would beep because of the extensive jewelry she was wearing at that time,2 and which, apparently, she never removes for any reason whatsoever.3 Washpon meant to suggest that Officer Parr should use the hand scanner she was holding at the time. Officer Parr did not accept the suggestion, however, and directed Wasphon to walk though the metal detector.
When Washpon walked through the metal detector, the alarm did in fact "beep" and Officer Parr directed Washpon to walk back again. About this time, another uniformed court officer, Officer Olga Lancer, suggested that the beep may have been caused by the cellular telephone earpiece in Washpon's ear. Washpon said that it was not the ear-piece, but placed the ear-piece on the conveyor belt, and walked back through a second time.
On her second attempt, Washpon beeped again. This time, after walking through, Wasphon stood with her arms out, parallel to the ground, inviting Officer Parr to use the hand-scanner. Once again, however, Officer Parr directed Washpon to walk back through. At some point, Officer Parr instructed Washpon to remove all items from her pockets.4 After Washpon's third and then her fourth failed attempts to pass through the metal detector Washpon asked Officer Parr to use the handscanner, but the hand-scanner was never used.
Sergeant George Green, the court officer in charge of the metal detector, testified that at some point during Washpon's numerous attempts to pass through the metal detector, he told Washpon that she could either comply with instructions and remove all objects from her pockets, or else she had to leave the building.5
After a fifth failed attempt, Officer Panagain instructed Washpon to walk back through. However, Washpon indicated that she did not wish to go back through the metal detector a sixth time. Officer Parr then instructed her to leave the building.6 Washpon turned to walk away, and asked Officer Parr if she could speak with her supervisor.7 Officer Parr responded that once Washpon left the building, Panwould get a supervisor.8
The accounts of what happened next differ, although more in terms of tone than actual sequence. Washpon's version of events is as follows: she walked away from the metal detector, and then approached a court officer at a podium at the bottom of the stairs to ask whether she could obtain the documents she needed at a different courthouse in New York City. Officer Panthen approached her again, told her she could not ask any questions here, and asked her to leave the premises immediately. Washpon then walked up the first flight of stairs, and, at the landing between flights, paused to rearrange the contents of her handbag — including personal items and a fish sandwich — which had been pulled out when they were sent through the conveyor belt. At this point, according to Washpon, three court officers arrested her.9
Officer Parr's version is that once Washpon refused to comply with directions at the metal detectors, Sergeant Green ordered Parr and Officer Lancer to escort Washpon out of the building. While the two officers were escorting Washpon out of the building, Washpon stopped in the lobby to talk to the officer, impeded the flow of traffic, and refused to move. Parr testifies that Sergeant Green then gave Parr the order to place Washpon under arrest based on her failure to comply with the order to leave the building.10
Sergeant Green's version of events is that as Washpon was walking away from the metal detector, he saw her approach another officer (presumably the officer at the podium) and "proceeded to speak in a loud manner, using profanity."11 After witnessing this exchange, and based upon her failure to leave the building, Sergeant Green gave the order to place her under arrest.12
Washpon disputes that there was anyone else present in the courthouse lobby while these events occurred,13 and although admits that she was "frustrated,"14 she avers that she never used any profanity.
The parties also provide slightly different versions of how the arrest itself was executed. According to Washpon, three officers — Parr, Lancer and Green — pushed her up against a banister, twisted her arm, and handcuffed her.15 As they were placing the handcuffs on her, they were "nipping" pieces of skin off of her hands.16 Washpon maintains that she told the officers repeatedly that they were hurting her, but they did not listen.
Neither Officer Parr nor Sergeant Green has any recollection of Washpon complaining about the handcuffs, or any other conditions.17
After Washpon was arrested, Officers Parr and Lancer took her to an office, where she remained in handcuffs for what she claims was around 45 minutes.18 Washpon again recalls complaining to the officers that the handcuffs were too tight and were hurting her, but to no avail.19 Again, the officers have no recollection of her complaining about the tightness of the handcuffs.
Washpon's bag was searched, and the officers ran a warrant check.20 Washpon claims that the officers improperly confiscated her shield and ID from when she had been an auxiliary police officer in the mid-1990s.21 Washpon also claims that, initially, Officer Parr intended to let her go without a summons, but when Sergeant Green heard as much, he said, "No, I'm not having that," and directed Officer Parr to write up a summons.22 Eventually Washpon was issued a summons for disorderly conduct, and released from custody.23
Washpon claims that after the handcuffs were removed, her hands were aching and swollen; the handcuffs had taken off some small pieces of skin on both of her hands; the back and side of both hands suffered general scratches and "abrasions;"24 there was "the first little blood";25 and she could not remove her rings or other jewelry due to the swelling. (Washpon apparently took photographs of her hands immediately after the incident, but she maintains they came out blurry, and in any event she can no longer find the photographs.26)
Upon leaving the courthouse, Washpon went to the emergency room at Mount Sinai hospital, where she was given a tetanus shot, and her hands were treated with iodine.27 She was told to soak her hands and compress them to remove the swelling, and then released. A week later, Washpon went for a follow-up visit with her regular doctor, who informed her that there was no infection.28
Washpon maintains that she suffered permanent injury in the form of three "marks" or "scars" where the handcuffs ripped pieces of skin off her hands.29
On September 9, 2004, Washpon appeared before Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO) Harold Enten of the Bronx Criminal Court on the disorderly conduct charge. After hearing testimony from Officer Parr and from Washpon, JHO Enten found Washpon guilty of disorderly conduct and ordered her to pay $145 in fines and surcharges.30
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in March of 2006, against defendants in their individual and official capacities. In August, 2006, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on: (1) qualified immunity; (2) the Eleventh Amendment bar on plaintiffs claims against the officers in their official capacities; and (3) the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yang Feng Zhao v. City of New York
...must prove some adverse physical effect, some even requiring longterm injury or medical treatment. See, e.g., Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394, 406-07 (S.D.N.Y.2008); Rincon v. City of New York, 2005 WL 646080, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, We respectfully disagree with those courts that have ......
-
Anderson v. City of New York
...the arrestee did not commit the crime, the officer will not be held liable if he acted reasonably and in good faith.” Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394, 403 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (citing Bernard v. United States, 25 F.3d 98, 102 (2d Cir.1994)). The test for qualified immunity is “more favorable t......
-
5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York
...of the state in which the arrest occurred—not federal law. See Davis v. Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 424, 433 (2d Cir.2004); Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). And under state law, there was probable cause—or even arguable probable cause—to arrest Cabrera for denying the police......
-
Hulett v. City of Fowler, 5:14-CV-152.
...force cases, unlike in other cases, the qualified immunity inquiry is the same as the inquiry made on the merits.’ " Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting O'Bert ex rel. Estate of O'Bert v. Vargo, 331 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 2003) ); see also Garcia, 43 F.Supp.3d at ......
-
Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
...duty. (District of Columbia Jail) FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, ASSOC.: Obscenity SAFETY AND SECURITY: Security Practices Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). An arrestee brought an action under [section] 1983 against court officers alleging false arrest, illegal search, malicious......