Aghoghoubia v. Noel

ORTEGA AGHOGHOUBIA, Plaintiff, v. PAROLE OFFICER BRANDON NOEL, PAROLE OFFICER JONATHAN MURDOCCO,and PAROLE OFFICERS JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1, 2, 3, etc (S), Defendants.

17-CV-1927 (NGG) (SJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 13, 2020

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Ortega Aghoghoubia brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Brandon Noel and Jonathan Murdocco, Parole Officers with the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. (See Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Now pending before the court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force claims.¹ (See Mot. for Summ. J. (Dkt. 31).) For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The court constructs the following statement of facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 Statements and the admissible evidence they submitted. Except where otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. Where the parties allege different facts, thecourt notes the dispute and credits the Plaintiff's version if it is supported by evidence in the record. All evidence is construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, with all "reasonable inferences" drawn in his favor. ING Bank N.V. v. M/V Temara, IMO No. 9333929, 892 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 2018).²

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff—who was on parole from a prior conviction—came to the Brooklyn Parole Office for an appointment with his parole officer.³ (Defs. R. 56.1 Statement ("Defs. 56.1") (Dkt. 33) ¶¶ 1-2, 19.) While Plaintiff was sitting in the waiting area of the office, Defendant Noel walked by and noticed that Plaintiff was wearing a hat. (Id. ¶ 16.) Defendants assert that there is a Parole Office policy banning hats in the waiting area. (See Decl. of Brandon Noel (Dkt. 35) ¶¶ 6, 9.) However, they do not assert that this policy is posted in the waiting area, nor do they submit evidence showing Plaintiff knew of this rule. (See generally Defs. 56.1; see also Pl. R. 56.1 Statement ("Pl. 56.1") (Dkt. 39) ¶ 61.) Noel instructed Plaintiff to remove his hat. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 20.) Defendants claim that Noel repeated the instruction multiple times before Plaintiff removed his hat, but Plaintiff testified he removed his hat the first time he heard the instruction.

(See id. ¶¶ 21-23; Tr. of July 30, 2018 Dep. of Ortega Aghoghoubia ("Pl. Dep.") (Dkt. 37-1) at 94:9-14.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff removed his hat. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 23.) The Parties do dispute whether, after Plaintiff removed his hat, Noel directed Plainitff to stand up and step forward. Defendants claim Plaintiff ignored Noel's directive, but Plaintiff testified that Noel did not give any additional order before he left the waiting area. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26; Pl. Dep. at 98:7-9.) Noel then left through a door at the front of the waiting area. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 27.)

Shortly thereafter, Noel returned to the waiting area, followed by several other parole officers. (Id. ¶ 29.) The parties agree that Noel approached Plaintiff and directed Plaintiff to stand up (id. ¶ 30), but Plaintiff asserts that it was impossible to comply with this directive, because Noel immediately grabbed Plaintiff's arms and pulled him to his feet (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. Dep. at 108:20-21; 116:10-13). The parties characterize the following moments quite differently. Defendants state that Plaintiff was resisting Noel, ignoring repeated commands from Noel, and pushing back against or wrestling Noel. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 34-37.) Defendants also point to Plaintiff's testimony that he "tensed up" by "instinct," and that he "wasn't going to let [Noel] just throw [him] down." (Id. ¶¶ 38-39 (quoting Pl. Dep. at 122).) Plaintiff, however, claims that he did not resist Noel and was never given a chance to comply with Noel's directives. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 38-39.) Additionally, Plaintiff points out that his testimony—when read in context and not in short and single-word excerpts—shows that he was not resisting Noel but was instead being held up against the wall by Noel and was afraid of incurring a serious injury if he was thrown to the ground. (Id.; Pl. Dep. at 122:8-9, 123:12-14.) During this interaction, Defendant Murdocco struck Plaintiff twice on the shin with a baton, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 45.) At that point, Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs. (Id. ¶ 46.) Shortly after the incident, Plaintiff was taken to a hospital,where his injuries were examined by a doctor and he was prescribed Motrin for his pain. (Id. ¶ 49.) Plaintiff continued to feel pain from the baton strikes for at least a week after the incident. (Id. ¶ 51; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 51.)

Plaintiff submits two videos of the incident as part of his opposition to Defendants' motion. The first video captures the incident from the front right corner of the waiting area (see Front Video (Dkt. 40-2)), and the second video shows the incident from the rear left corner (see Rear Video (Dkt. 40-3)). The videos do not have audio and neither video perfectly captures the entire incident. However, when viewed in tandem, the videos provide valuable context to the conflicting testimony.

The Rear Video shows Noel walking into the waiting area and proceeding directly toward Plaintiff. (Rear Video.) Noel is followed immediately by one other officer; four additional officers enter the waiting area as Noel arrives at where Plaintiff is sitting. (Id.) In Noel's last few steps, he begins to reach his arms out toward Plaintiff. (Id.) At this point, Plaintiff is obscured by a column in the waiting area (id.), but the Front Video shows what happens next.

The Front Video shows Plaintiff holding his hat in his hand and looking toward the ground. (Front Video.) This video does not show the door through which Noel enters, but Plaintiff looks in Noel's direction a few seconds after the Rear Video shows Noel entering. (Id.; Rear Video) When Noel arrives at Plaintiff, he immediately grabs for Plaintiff's arm. (Front Video.) Seconds later, holding on to Plaintiff's left arm with this left hand, Noel places his right hand on Plaintiffs side and back area and pushes Plaintiff into the man seated to his right. (Id.) That man (and the man to the right of him) eventually stand up and move out of the way, and Noel pushes Plaintiff down against the bench. (Id.) Noel then pulls Plaintiff off of the bench, and Noel and Plaintiff exit the frame. (Id.)

Viewing again the rear video, Noel pulls Plaintiff off of the bench and swings him around so Plaintiff's back is toward the front wall of the waiting area. (Rear Video.) Leaning forward like a football player driving a blocking sled, Noel forces Plaintiff back into the wall. (Id.) The other officers rush to join Noel, and Murdocco strikes Plaintiff twice with his Baton. (Id.) Plaintiff collapses, with officers landing on top of him, and the view of him is obstructed by officers as he is placed into handcuffs. (Id.) About thirty seconds later, Plaintiff is pulled up and Noel escorts Plaintiff through the door in the front of waiting area. (Id.)

Plaintiff was charged with parole violations as a result of the incident. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 52.) A preliminary hearing for Plaintiff was held on April 14, 2016. (Id. ¶ 53.) Noel and Murdocco testified and Plaintiff did not. (Id.) The Hearing Officer considered one charged violation: that Plaintiff "threatened the safety and well-being of himself and others who were present in the waiting area when he physically resisted being placed into custody by a parole officer." (Id. ¶ 54.) Explicitly relying on the testimony of Noel and Murdocco, the hearing officer found probable cause for the violation and set a date for a final revocation hearing. (Id. ¶ 55; see also Tr. of Apr. 14, 2016 Preliminary Hearing ("Preliminary Hearing Tr.") (Dkt. 34.-3).) At the final revocation hearing, the Hearing Officer "found no violation of parole in any important respect" and vacated the warrant against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 57.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 4, 2017. (Compl.) On March 15, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims except for his excessive force claim. (See Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 19); Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 20).) On January 11, 2019, the court issued a memorandum and order granting the motion as to Plaintiff's state law and procedural due process claims, and denying the motion as to Plaintiff's other claims. See Aghoghoubia v. Noel, No. 17-CV-1927 (NGG), 2019 WL 181309,at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019). Defendants answered the complaint on January 25, 2019. (Answer (Dkt. 29).) On May 23, 2019, Defendants filed their fully briefed motion for summary judgment. (See Defs. Mot. for Summ. J.; Mem.; Mem. in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. ("Opp.") (Dkt. 38); Reply (Dkt. 41).)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court must grant summary judgment when "the movant shows 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. Pro. 56(a). "A 'material' fact is one capable of influencing the case's outcome under governing substantive law, and a 'genuine' dispute is one as to which the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to find for the party opposing the motion." Figueroa v. Mazza, 825 F.3d 89, 98 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The movant may discharge its initial burden by demonstrating that the non-movant "has 'failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 255 F. Supp. 3d 443, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986) (alteration adopted).

"To determine whether an issue is genuine, '[t]he inferences to be drawn from...