White v. Cnty. of Suffolk
| Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-1501 (JS)(JMW) |
| Parties | SAMUEL WHITE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RONALD TAVARES, MICHAEL MILAU, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DARRYL LEVY, LAURA NEWCOMBE, THOMAS SPOTA, JOHN DOES 1-10, TIMOTHY SINI, OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER CRIME LABORATORY SUFFOLK COUNTY, HELEN WONG, ODETTE R. HALL, M.D., JOHN PETERSON and JAMES McGUINNESS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Stephanie McClure, Esq. Law Office of Stephanie McClure For Plaintiff
Brian C Mitchell, Esq. Suffolk County Dept. of Law-County Attorney For All Defendants (except Thomas Spota)
Anthony M. LaPinta, Esq. Kyle O. Wood, Esq. Law Offices of Anthony M. La Pinta For Defendant Thomas Spota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Samuel White (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, seeking monetary damages and non-monetary relief for alleged violations of due process and equal protection false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, failure to intervene, denial of right to counsel, fabrication of evidence, presentation of false evidence to the grand jury and an appellate court, conspiracy, and failure to train or supervise.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fabricated a case against him in an effort to charge him with manslaughter arising out of an incident that occurred on May 25, 2016, during which he was approached by a man (“E.R.”) who threatened to rob him. (See generally DE 87.) According to Plaintiff, he went to the police department to report the attempted robbery incident, where he was then arrested. (Id. ¶¶ 85, 95, 103, 107.) Following a jury trial, Plaintiff was acquitted. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 155.) Defendants Assistant District Attorney Laura Newcombe, Assistant District Attorney Daryl Levy, and Honorable Timothy Sini, District Attorney of Suffolk County, move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that all claims against Defendants Newcombe, Levy, and Sini should be dismissed because they are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and sovereign immunity, and that Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief against Defendants should be dismissed.[1](See generally DE 96-2.) Defendant Spota moves separately pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) arguing that Plaintiff's claims fail because he has not plead that Defendant Spota was personally involved in any alleged constitutional deprivation, that all claims against Spota should be dismissed based upon sovereign immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and qualified immunity, and that Plaintiff's equitable relief claims should be dismissed. (See generally DE 97-2.)
Before the Court on referral from the Honorable Joanna Seybert are Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (DE 96; DE 97.) For the reasons that follow, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the motions to dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
II. PERTINENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND[2]
The facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) (DE 87) and are presumed true for purposes of this Report and Recommendation.[3]
On the night of May 25, 2016, Plaintiff was leaving a pub in Huntington, New York, with Valerie Holloway (a/k/a “Janelle”), an acquaintance. (DE 87 ¶¶ 82, 86.) As they walked toward Plaintiff's car, Plaintiff saw Janelle's ex-boyfriend (“E.R.”) driving toward them in the wrong direction down a one-way street without headlights. (Id. ¶¶ 82, 83, 85.) E.R. jumped out of the car and threatened to steal Plaintiff's jewelry. (Id. ¶ 85.) Plaintiff told E.R. that he did not want to fight, but E.R. punched Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 89, 90.) In self-defense, Plaintiff punched E.R. and left the scene, although his jewelry was stolen during the altercation. (Id. ¶ 91.) Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Janelle had set up this encounter and robbery. (Id. ¶ 92.) Although E.R. was sitting up and breathing when Plaintiff left the scene, E.R. passed away later that evening at a hospital.[4](Id. ¶ 97.) The incident was captured on surveillance video. (Id. ¶ 98.)
Plaintiff went to the Suffolk County Police Third Precinct and met with Detectives Tavares and Milau (named Defendants), where he was placed in handcuffs where an unrecorded statement was taken. (Id. ¶ 94.) Before Plaintiff arrived, the police had received information that E.R. complained that same evening about “Bloods” gang members that had been following him that night and had heard Janelle was a troublemaker that should be looked into. (Id. ¶¶ 101, 102.) Plaintiff told the police he wanted to help the investigation and gave them access to his cell phone. (Id. ¶ 103.) However, Plaintiff was arrested within several minutes of giving his statement and held without charges for hours while he was denied repeated requests for an attorney. (Id. ¶ 107.)
The police then contacted the DA's office, and Defendant ADA Newcombe advised Detectives Milau and Tavares to charge Plaintiff with the crime of manslaughter. (Id. ¶ 108.)
The grand jury indicted Plaintiff, but on appeal the indictment was dismissed as Judge Condon found that the law on self-defense should have been read to the jury, but was not. (Id. ¶ 111.) Plaintiff had at that point served a year in jail. (Id. ¶ 148.) Defendants appealed and Plaintiff was re-arrested on November 23, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 151, 154.) The case went to trial in June of 2019, and Plaintiff was fully acquitted on July 12, 2019, after a jury was finally presented with the surveillance video and Plaintiff's statement, and heard testimony regarding Janelle's lies, including photos of her posing with the proceeds of the robbery by E.R. (Id. ¶ 155.)
Despite providing Defendants with his cell phone, having the surveillance video available, and having access to Janelle's phone, the Defendant police officers allegedly ignored exculpatory evidence and passed lies to the prosecution to maliciously prosecute Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 118-24.) Plaintiff alleges the DA and Suffolk Police fabricated evidence through a system regarding Tavares' notes that Plaintiff refers to as an “end around” ploy, in the purported statement and manipulation of Halloway, in the grand jury presentation, false reports, false autopsy report, and hiding/ignoring exculpatory evidence. (Id. ¶ 136.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted in concert and conspired with each other to build a false case against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 133.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants withheld Brady material, including histories of Internal Affairs investigations about previous cases of falsifying evidence, coercing witnesses, and procuring false witness statements and confessions. (Id. ¶ 144.)
Defendant Thomas Spota was the head of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office during the investigation and prosecution of Plaintiff's criminal case until November of 2017, when Defendant Timothy Sini replaced Spota, as the head of the Suffolk County District Attorney's office, a position he remained in for the balance of the investigation, prosecution, and trial of Plaintiff's criminal case. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25, 37.) Spota was indicted in October of 2017 and convicted in 2019 for conspiracy, witness tampering, and obstruction. (Id. ¶ 69.)
Plaintiff alleges that Spota's conviction exposed a culture of law enforcement ignoring available exculpatory evidence, creating false facts and impressions, fabricating evidence, and engaging in cove-ups of facts, similar to what happened to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff recounts various prior homicide cases that were overturned or dismissed while Spota was in office, including Shawn Lawrence v. Suffolk County, et al.; 2:19-cv-02887; Thomas M. Moroughan v. The County of Suffolk, et al.; 2:12-cv-00512; People v. Hubbard, 45 Misc.3d 328 (Efman, J.), aff'd 132 A.D.3d 1013 (2d Dept 2015); the matter of Austin Barth (no cite provided); Wilfredo Flores, 165 A.D.3d 695 (2d Dept 2018); the case of Dante Taylor (no cite provided); the case of Messiah Booker (not cite given); and, Rudolph Bisnauth (no cite provided) (Id. ¶¶ 10, 53, 56, 58, 59, 62, 67).
Plaintiff alleges Sini was aware of the culture of corruption and prior mishandlings of constitutional rights under the Spota Administration, including problems with other named Defendants, intentional withholding of Brady material, fabrication of evidence, knowingly or recklessly using false evidence, improper manipulation of witnesses, creation of false or unreliable statements/testimony, and tolerating police creation of false or unreliable statements/testimony. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff asserts that both Spota and Sini had a duty to train and supervise their employees. (Id. ¶ 38.)
Defendants Larua Newcombe and Darryl Levy were Assistant District Attorneys at the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office during the underlying criminal case. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.) Defendant Newcombe presented the case to the grand jury and according to Plaintiff, Newcombe guided Janelle into falsely testifying. (Id. ¶ 110.) During the appeal of Plaintiff's grand jury indictment Newcombe signed an affirmation to the court regarding the case and presentation based upon her direct knowledge of the matter, her investigation, and the DA's investigation. (Id. ¶ 114.) Newcomb intentionally withheld exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense by telling Helen Wong not to perform tests she knew would come back in plaintiff's favor. (Id. ¶ 140.) Plaintiff alleges that Newcombe intentionally played an investigative role in Plaintiff's criminal case, requiring certain parts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial