Watkins v. Ruscitto
| Decision Date | 11 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14 Civ. 7504 (AJP) |
| Parties | NIKITA WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. DETECTIVE ROCCO RUSCITTO and DETECTIVE JOHN GENGO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Pro se plaintiff Nikita Watkins brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her constitutional rights were violated by defendants in connection with two arrests in 2013. (Dkt. No. 17: 2d Am. Compl.) Presently before the Court is defendants' summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 49: Notice of Mot.) Watkins has not responded to the motion, and the time to do so has passed. (See Dkt. No. 48.) The parties have consented to decision of this motion by a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 44.)
For the reasons set forth below, defendants' summary judgment motion is GRANTED.
Watkins' claims arise from arrests on March 13, 2013 and May 1, 2013. On both occasions, Watkins was arrested by N.Y.P.D. Detectives John Gengo and Rocco Ruscitto. (SAC § III(C).) Watkins asserts that subsequent to the arrests, she suffers from insomnia and anxiety, and requires sleep aids and anti-anxiety medication. (SAC § IV; see also Dkt. No. 51: Noble Aff. Ex. L: Watkins Dep. at 78, 82, 94.)1 Watkins seeks monetary compensation for her psychological injuries. (SAC § V.)
On March 2, 2013, N.Y.P.D. Detective Pedro Ramos was assigned to investigate a complaint made by victim Shoshanna Morgan. Morgan told Detective Ramos in a March 3, 2013 interview that Watkins called her and threatened: "'I will shoot you in the face when I see you!'" Morgan further stated that Watkins made unsolicited visits to the shelter where Morgan lived, and told Morgan that she would be waiting outside.
Det. Ramos requested information from the Department of Homeless Services, and determined that Watkins lived in a shelter at 730 Kelly Street in the Bronx. Based on the investigation, Det. Ramos believed that probable cause existed to arrest Watkins for second degree aggravated harassment, Penal Law § 240.30(02). (Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 13; Ramos Aff. ¶ 6.) On March 11, 2013, consistent with N.Y.P.D. procedure, Det. Ramos activated an investigation card for Watkins' arrest.
On March 12, 2013, Detectives Gengo and Ruscitto were assigned to arrest Watkins. On March 13, 2013, at 7:40 a.m., they went to 730 Kelly Street and knocked on the door of Watkins' unit. (Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶17; Ex. L: Watkins Dep. at 30-31.) Watkins and her infant son had been sleeping, and she opened the door in her undergarments. (Watkins Dep. at 32; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18.) Detectives Gengo and Ruscitto told Watkins that they needed to enter her room, and when she protested that she was in her underwear, they said it did not matter. (Watkins Dep. at 32; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 19.) Watkins asked if she could get dressed in the bathroom across the hall from her unit, but the detectives would not allow her to leave her room and asked her to pull her bra away from her body and shake it to see if she had hidden drugs or weapons. (Watkins Dep. at 36, 45-46; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23.) Watkins complied, but felt "sexually uncomfortable." (Watkins Dep. at 46.)
Detectives Gengo and Ruscitto searched Watkins' unit (Watkins Dep. at 36; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 22), and then escorted Watkins and her child from the shelter to their car (Watkins Dep. at 48; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 28-29). Watkins states that one of the detectives grabbed her arm (Watkins Dep. at 47), but she was not handcuffed because she was carrying her son (Watkins Dep. at 43). Detectives Gengo and Ruscitto brought Watkins to the precinct, after which she had no further contact with them in connection with this arrest. (Watkins Dep. at 49-50; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 30.)
Detective Cliff Acosta questioned Watkins about her contact with Morgan. (Watkins Dep. at 49-50; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 32.) Watkins acknowledged that she and Morgan had an altercation in February 2013, when they both lived in the same shelter. (Watkins Dep. at 49-50; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33.) Watkins denied threatening Morgan, but stated that she had called her in an attempt to "squash th[e] beef." (Watkins Dep. at 66, 70; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33.)
That same day, March 13, 2013, Morgan executed a criminal affidavit, attesting that on March 2, 2013, Watkins called her, threatened to shoot her in the face, hung up, and called back to say that she was coming to Morgan's shelter to fight her. (Ex. N: 3/13/13 Morgan Criminal Aff.)Morgan further stated that she knew Watkins, and recognized her voice on the telephone. (3/13/13 Morgan Criminal Aff.) Watkins' calls caused Morgan "annoyance, alarm, and fear for her physical safety." (3/13/13 Morgan Criminal Aff.)
Watkins was taken to Bronx Central Booking, and arraigned in Bronx County Criminal Court on three counts of second degree aggravated harassment. (Watkins Dep. at 56, 58; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 34-35.) At Watkins' arraignment, Judge Stephen Hornstein issued an Order of Protection, valid through May 8, 2013, ordering Watkins to stay away from and refrain from communicating with Morgan. (Ex. O: 3/13/13 Order of Protection.) The Order of Protection stated that failure to obey its terms might "result in mandatory arrest and criminal prosecution which may result in . . . incarceration for up to seven years for contempt of court." (3/13/13 Order of Protection.) Watkins signed the Order before she was released. (Watkins Dep. at 99; 3/13/13 Order of Protection at 1; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 40.)
On April 23, 2013, Morgan told N.Y.P.D. Officer Gregory King that Watkins had contacted her and threatened to kill her, in violation of an outstanding Order of Protection. .) Detective Thomas Farrell was assigned to investigate Morgan's complaint. (Ex. P: Farrell Aff. ¶ 4; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 45.) On April 24, 2013, Det. Farrell conducted a computer check that revealed two prior criminal complaints by Morgan against Watkins for menacing and aggravated harassment. .) The following day, Det. Farrell confirmed that Morgan had a valid Order of Protection against Watkins, and that the Order had been served on Watkins in court. .) Based on Morgan's complaint, and the active Order of Protection, Det. Farrell concluded that there existed probablecause to arrest Watkins for second degree aggravated harassment. (Farrell Aff. ¶ 7; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 50.) Consistent with N.Y.P.D. practice, Farrell created an investigation card for Watkins' arrest. .)
Detectives Gengo and Ruscitto again were assigned to arrest Watkins. On May 1, 2013, they went to 730 Kelly Avenue at 7:40 a.m, and arrested Watkins for second degree aggravated harassment and second degree criminal contempt. .) Watkins claims that the detectives "did the same thing" as on March 13, 2013 - entered her unit, searched it and the hallway bathroom, would not allow her to go to the bathroom or get dressed in private, and escorted her out of the shelter. (Ex. L: Watkins Dep. at 111-13; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 54-57.) Watkins was rear cuffed and taken to the precinct (Watkins Dep. at 114; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 58), after which she had no further interaction with Detectives Gengo and Ruscitto (Watkins Dep. at 117, Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63).
On the afternoon of Watkins' arrest, Det. Farrell interviewed Morgan. (Farrell Aff. ¶ 11; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 59.) Morgan stated that Watkins called her twenty-seven times in violation of the Order of Protection, and threatened: "'I will go to your shelter and murder you.'" Morgan confirmed that she recognized Watkins' voice , and identified Watkins in a photograph (Farrell Aff. ¶ 12; Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 60).
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the "court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact andthe movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2509-10 (1986); Humphreys v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 553 F. App'x 13, 14 (2d Cir. 2014); Connolly v. Calvanese, 515 F. App'x 62, 62 (2d Cir. 2013); Lang v. Ret. Living Publ'g Co., 949 F.2d 576, 580 (2d Cir. 1991).
The burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute exists rests on the party seeking summary judgment. See, e.g., Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1608 (1970); Alzawahra v. Albany Med. Ctr., 546 F. App'x 53, 54 (2d Cir. 2013); Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1994). The movant may discharge this burden by demonstrating to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case on an issue on which the non-movant has the burden of proof. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial