Baumeister v. Erie Cnty.

1

BRANDON G. BAUMEISTER, Plaintiff, v. ERIE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 23-CV-1150-LJV

United States District Court, W.D. New York

September 30, 2024

DECISION & ORDER

LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On September 14, 2023, the plaintiff, Brandon G. Baumeister commenced this action by filing a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. See Docket Item 1-10. The complaint named numerous defendants: Erie County, Erie County Sheriff John C. Garcia, and several Erie County sheriff's deputies (the “Erie County defendants”); the City of Buffalo and the Buffalo Police Department (the “Buffalo defendants”) Niagara County, Niagara County Sheriff Michael J. Filicetti and several Niagara County sheriff's deputies (the “Niagara County defendants”); the City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara Falls Police Department (the “Niagara Falls defendants”); the Town of Lewiston, the Lewiston Police Department, and several Town of Lewiston police officers (the “Town of Lewiston defendants”); the Village of Lewiston; and two New York state troopers (the “New York defendants”).^[1] Id. About six weeks later, the Town of Lewiston defendants, with the consent of the other defendants, removed the case to this Court. See Docket Items 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8.

On November 3, 2023, the Erie County defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Docket Item 6. Several days later, the New York defendants, the Town of Lewiston defendants, the Niagara Falls defendants, the Niagara County defendants, and the Buffalo defendants each moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).^[2] Docket Items 11, 13, 16, 17, and 18. Baumeister then responded to each of the motions, Docket Items 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71, and the defendants replied, Docket Items 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80.^[3]

For the reasons that follow, this Court grants the defendants' motions in part and denies those motions in part. More specifically, the motions are granted with respect to the Buffalo Police Department, the Lewiston Police Department, and the Niagara Falls Police Department, and the claims against those defendants are dismissed. The official capacity claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 also are dismissed. The first and fourth causes of action (excessive force and failure to intervene under section 1983) may proceed against Deputy Nicholas Cervoni, Deputy Justin Bauer, Deputy Paul Kieffer, Deputy David Liskiewicz, Deputy Robert Lazarcyzk, Deputy Kuhn, Deputy Ellis,^[4]Sergeant Christopher Soluri, Police Officer Jonathan Emmons, Police Officer Joshua Belin, Captain Michael Salada, Lieutenant Sean Furey, Deputy James Villani, Deputy Justin Schwarzmueller, Deputy Marylynn Stephenson, Police Officer Adam Moen, Police Officer Michael A. Kidder, Jr., and the John Doe officers (collectively, the “individual defendants”) but are dismissed as to Garcia, Filicetti, Erie County, Niagara County, the City of Buffalo, the City of Niagara Falls, the Town of Lewiston, and the Village of Lewiston^[5] (the “municipal defendants”). The second and third causes of action (assault and battery under New York state law) may proceed against the individual defendants and the City of Buffalo, the City of Niagara Falls, the Village of Lewiston, and the Town of Lewiston, but are dismissed as to Erie County, Niagara County, Garcia, and Filicetti. The fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action (Monell claims, supervisory liability under section 1983, and negligence under New York state law) are dismissed without prejudice to Baumeister's filing a motion to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies outlined below by October 21, 2024.^[6] Finally, Baumeister's claim for punitive damages may proceed against the individual defendants but is dismissed as to the municipal defendants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[7]

On September 18, 2022, “at approximately 2:00 a.m.,” Baumeister was driving “a black 2020 GMC Yukon on Kentucky Street” in Buffalo, New York, “when an Erie County Sheriff's [o]fficer began pursing him.” Docket Item 1-10 at ¶ 59. Law enforcement officers from Erie County, the Erie County Sheriff's Office, the Buffalo Police Department, the Lewiston Police Department, the Niagara County Sheriff's Department, the Niagara Falls Police Department, and the New York State Police then “engaged in a high-speed and dangerous chase of [Baumeister] through several streets in the City of Buffalo, Town of Cheektowaga, Town of Tonawanda, Town of Grand Island, Town of Niagara, Village of Lewiston[,] and City of Niagara Falls.” Id. at ¶ 60. The officers “improperly and recklessly pursued [Baumeister] in violation of their respective department policies and the law in the high-speed pursuit and chase across multiple counties, including outside their respective jurisdictions.” Id. at ¶ 61.

Baumeister “attempted to surrender to [the officers] in the Village of Lewiston, but as he attempted to do so, [the] police officers began violently striking the windows of the vehicle [Baumeister] was in.” Id. at ¶ 63. The “[p]olice officers had their handguns drawn and fired a shot through the window of [Baumeister's] vehicle,” shattering that window. Id. Because Baumeister “fear[ed] for his life . . ., he resumed driving through the Village of Lewiston and the City of Niagara Falls.” Id. He finally “came to a stop on Buffalo Avenue near Point Avenue and South 91st Street in Niagara Falls.” Id. at ¶ 64. Baumeister “exited the vehicle with his hands up, was unarmed[,] and was fully complying with the order of officers.” Id.

Some combination of the individual defendants then “exited their police vehicle[s] and violently tackled [Baumeister] to the ground.” Id. at ¶ 65. They “excessively beat [Baumeister] while he was on the ground, punching, striking, and kicking him repeatedly in the legs, arms, back, shoulders, neck[,] and head.” Id. at ¶ 67. As a result, Baumeister suffered numerous injuries, including:

a concussion, fractured nose, disc herniations in neck, neck injuries, left shoulder injury, left arm injury, upper extremity injury, injuries to bilateral lower extremities, sprained right ankle, rib injuries, injury to sternum, injury to left eye/orbit and left cheek, face, head, injuries to teeth, injuries to both wrists, injuries to upper, middle, and lower back, soreness in kidneys, intense and frequent headaches, difficulty breathing, and . . . anxiety[.]

Id. Baumeister “was hospitalized as a result of these injuries.” Id.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

“To survive a motion to dismiss [under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell. Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The same standard applies to a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). See Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010).

DISCUSSION

The defendants argue that dismissal of the various claims is warranted for several reasons. See generally Docket Item 6-2 (Erie County defendants); Docket Item 12 (New York defendants); Docket Item 13-1 (Town of Lewiston defendants) Docket Item 16-3 (Niagara Falls defendants); Docket Item 17-4 (Niagara County defendants); Docket Item 18-1 (Buffalo defendants).^[8] The Court will first address the defendants' argument that Baumeister engaged in improper “group pleading” by failing to specifically identify which defendants engaged in which conduct. Next, the Court will address some arguments that involve only certain defendants. The Court will then analyze Baumeister's federal claims, followed by his state claims. Finally, the Court will address Baumeister's claim for punitive damages.

I. GROUP PLEADING

The defendants first argue that the complaint should be dismissed due to improper “group pleading.” See Docket Item 6-2 at 10-11; Docket Item 12 at 5-7; Docket Item 13-1 at 18-21; Docket Item 16-3 at 4-5; Docket Item 17-4 at 11-13; Docket Item 181 at 5-6.^[9] Generally, “[p]leadings that do not differentiate which defendant was involved in the unlawful conduct are insufficient to state a claim.” Ying Li v. City of New York, 246 F.Supp.3d 578, 598 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); see Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 Fed.Appx. 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (explaining that “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the plaintiff]'s complaint failed to satisfy th[e] minimum [pleading] standard”); Wright v. Orleans County, 2015 WL 5316410, at *13 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015) (noting that “[g]roup pleading [in a section 1983 case] is insufficient for purposes of [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 8(a)(2) which requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

But “context matters” when assessing whether a pleading gives sufficient notice. Bryant v. Monroe County, 2022 WL 119184, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2022). “For example, in situations involving an alleged assault by a group of police officers or corrections officers, courts do not insist that the complaint set forth in detail the actions of each...