Anniskiewicz v. City of Rochester

MARIANNE ANNISKIEWICZ, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, ET AL., Defendants.

Case # 20-cv-6629-FPG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 29, 2021

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Marianne Anniszkiewicz brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two officers with the Rochester Police Department ("RPD")—Officer Brian Cala and Sergeant Jennifer Trenton—and the City of Rochester for alleged violations of her constitutional rights arising out of the shooting of her pet dog Sampson. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims Defendants are liable for (1) municipal liability for constitutional violations under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (2) unreasonable search of curtilage under the Fourth Amendment; and (3) unlawful seizure of personal property under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiff filed her complaint on August 23, 2020. On October 15, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(d) and 56. ECF No. 8. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND¹

At around 11:00 a.m. on June 10, 2018, Plaintiff called 911 to report that her neighbor, Sharon Strickland, was attempting to hit a stray dog with her vehicle on Hollis Street. ECF No. 1 ¶ 14. Animal Control responded to the scene and removed the stray dog. Id. ¶ 15.

An hour later, Officer Cala and Sergeant Trenton responded to Plaintiff's home at 236 Belknap Street, approximately one block away from the location on Hollis Street where the incident with the stray dog occurred. Id. ¶ 16. Cala and Trenton parked their vehicle in front of Plaintiff's home and approached the front gate to her yard. Id. ¶ 19. Without contacting Plaintiff, Cala and Trenton entered Plaintiff's yard. Id.

Several seconds later, Plaintiff's pet dog Sampson began trotting from the back of the house and approached Cala and Trenton. According to the complaint, when Cala and Trenton approached, Sampson was not barking, growling, snarling, or exhibiting any signs of aggression. Id. ¶ 32. Cala unholstered his gun and pointed at Sampson indicating, "there it is." Id. ¶ 33. Cala paused and yelled for Sampson to "back the fuck up." Id. ¶ 34. Sampson barked in response and Cala fired one shot, striking the dog in the head and killing him. Id. The incident was captured on body cameras worn by Cala and Trenton. Plaintiff's four-year-old grandson was standing behind where the incident occurred and witnessed Sampson being shot. Id. ¶ 35.

According to the complaint, in the five-year period from 2004 to 2009, RPD officers shot 87 dogs, killing 35 of them. Id. ¶ 72. This is the result of the RPD's failure to adopt policies or provide training to police officers on how to safely interact with dogs, despite knowing the that unnecessary canine injuries or deaths were commonplace. Id. ¶¶ 86-100. Plaintiff alleges that the unjustified shooting of her dog by RPD officers is part of this pattern and practice.

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendants' motion invokes both Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56.

"To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the challenged conduct (1) was attributable to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Whalen v. Cnty. of Fulton, 126 F.3d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 875-76 (2d Cir. 1994)). "Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)).

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 572 (2007) (quoting another source), and "draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The application of this standard is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679.

On the other hand, summary judgment is appropriate when the record 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. P. 56(a). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. See Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). However, the nonmoving party "may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation." F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment search claim and Plaintiff's Monell claim. They also move to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment with respect to the Fourth Amendment seizure claim, by relying on the body worn camera footage from the incident. The Court analyses each claim separately below.

I. Unlawful Search

Plaintiff claims that Cala and Trenton violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they entered the curtilage of her home without a warrant. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 136, 138. Defendants argue that this claim fails as a a matter of law because the part of Plaintiff's property Cala and Trenton entered was not curtilage and was therefore not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. In any event, they say, Cala and Trenton had a license to enter the property.

Defendants' arguments misconstrue the facts alleged in the complaint, which the Court must take as true on this motion to dismiss. Defendants assert that Cala and Trenton "passed through an unlocked front gate and walked down the paved front walkway to [P]laintiff's front door." ECF No. 8-5 at 7. To be sure, "the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt entry" and, as a result, "a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do." Floridav. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, "when a police officer enters private property for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and embarks only upon places visitors could be expected to go, observations made from such vantage points are not covered by the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Titemore, 437 F.3d 251, 260 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting another source).

But the complaint alleges that Cala and Trenton entered Plaintiff's "fenced-in" "backyard." ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 136, 138. Nowhere does the complaint allege, as Defendants assert, that Cala and Trenton walked up to Plaintiff's front door. Rather, the complaint alleges that Cala and Trenton entered a gated portion of Plaintiff's yard. The Second Circuit has held that it is "clearly established that a fenced-in side or backyard directly abutting a single-family house constitutes curtilage," Harris v. O'Hare, 770 F.3d 224, 240 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing qualified immunity), as amended (Nov. 24, 2014), and Defendants do not argue that they had an implied license to enter Plaintiff's backyard, see United States v. Alexander, 888 F.3d 628, 636 (2d Cir. 2018) (suggesting, in dicta, that a back portion of a driveway, which was not necessary to cross to enter a home, was outside the curtilage and thus not subject to an implied license to enter). Therefore, insofar as it is premised on a misinterpretation of the complaint, Defendants' argument fails. As a result, Defendants' motion regarding the Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim is DENIED.

II. Unlawful Seizure

Defendants argue that the body worn camera footage indisputably establishes that the Cala acted reasonably when he shot and killed Sampson. Although the footage is not referenced in the complaint, Defendants argue that the Court may consider it because Plaintiff relied on it in drafting the complaint. Alternatively, Defendants argue that the Court should convert the motion to dismissinto one for summary judgment and find in their favor because, in light of the footage, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the officers acted reasonably. Both arguments fail.

A. Motion to Dismiss

"In determining the adequacy of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), consideration is limited to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken." Allen v. Westpoint-Pepperll, Inc., 945 F.2d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 1991). "Even where a document is not incorporated by reference, the court may nevertheless consider it where the complaint 'relies heavily upon its terms and effect,' which renders the document 'integral' to the complaint." Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting another source).

Defendants concede that Plaintiff did not reference the body worn camera footage in the complaint. ECF No. 8-5 at 5. Rather, they argue that the Court can...