Brock v. City of N.Y.

KAMILAH BROCK, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

15-CV-1832 (VSB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 25, 2018

OPINION & ORDER

Appearances:

Ryan Lawlor

The Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC

New York, New York

Counsel for Plaintiff

Joshua J. Lax

for Zachary W. Carter

Corporation Counsel for the City of New York

New York, New York

Counsel for Defendants

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Kamilah Brock brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges claims of false imprisonment, violation of her right to due process, and municipal liability arising out of her arrest under the New York State Mental Hygiene Law and subsequent hospitalization. Before me is the motion for summary judgment filed by the City of New York, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Harlem Hospital, Dr. Elisabeth Lescouflair, Dr. Zana Dobroshi, Dr. Alan Dudley Labor, Dr. Herman Anderson, and Officer Salvador Diaz (collectively, the "Defendants"). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to the § 1983 claims against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Harlem Hospital and the Monell claim against the City of New York, and DENIED with regard to the false imprisonment claim against Defendant Diaz and the false imprisonment and due process claims against Dr. Lescouflair, Dr. Dobroshi, Dr. Labor, and Dr. Anderson ("Defendant Doctors").

I. Factual Background¹

On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff was subjected to a traffic stop while driving her vehicle. (See Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 8.)² Plaintiff's car smelled of marijuana and it was searched. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Subsequent to the search of her vehicle, Plaintiff was transported to the 30th Precinct. (Id. ¶ 17.) At that time, however, Plaintiff did not know that she was being transported to the 30th Precinct. (Id.) Although she understood that she was at a precinct once she arrived, she did not know the exact name or location of the precinct. (Id.) Plaintiff's car keys were vouchered by an officer from the 30th Precinct. (Id. ¶ 23.) Her father picked her up at the 30th Precinct, and Plaintiff was told to pick up her car the next day. (See id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Plaintiff's understanding was that her car would be at a precinct on 151st Street, (id. ¶ 22), which is where the 30th Precinct is located.

A. Plaintiff Attempts to Retrieve Her Car

The next day, Plaintiff came into Manhattan to retrieve her car. (See id. ¶¶ 26-48.) While on this quest, Plaintiff arrived at Police Service Area 6 ("PSA 6"). (See id. ¶ 49.) Upon arrival, Plaintiff asked for help finding the 151st Street Precinct. (Id.) At first, she spoke with a female police officer, explaining that she needed help finding the 151st Precinct because her carhad been confiscated the day before and she was lost. (Id. ¶ 51.) The female officer responded that she would get someone to help her, and a male officer, Defendant Officer Diaz, came to speak with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 52-53).

Officer Diaz asked Plaintiff why she was looking for the 151st Street Precinct, and she told him that her car had been confiscated the day before, and that she needed to retrieve it. (Id. ¶ 55.) He asked for Plaintiff's name and address, and she provided this information to him. (Id. ¶ 56.) Officer Diaz left and came back, at which point he told Plaintiff that he did not see her car in the system. (Id. ¶ 58.) He then asked Plaintiff what kind of car it was, and she told him. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60.) He also asked for her license plate number, and when Plaintiff responded that she did not know it, Officer Diaz asked why she did not know it. (Id. ¶¶ 61-62.) Plaintiff responded that she did not remember it. (Id. ¶ 62.) When asked whether she was sure that she owned the car, Plaintiff stated that she owned the car and it was registered to her, and she also reiterated that the car was confiscated the day before at the 151st Street Station. (Id. ¶ 64.)

At this point, Officer Diaz left again and came back, and he asked for Plaintiff's age. (Id. ¶ 65.) Feeling as if the officer was badgering her, Plaintiff asked, "What does that have to do with anything?" (Id. ¶ 66.) In an effort to make a joke, Plaintiff then stated that a woman does not tell her age. (Id. ¶ 67.) Officer Diaz responded that he would be right back, and when he returned, he stated that her car was not in the system. (Id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiff again told him that her car had been confiscated the day before, and she asked him to call over to the precinct because she had been waiting for an hour and a half. (Id. ¶ 69.) Officer Diaz walked away for a third time. (Id. ¶ 70.)

Plaintiff began fidgeting around the precinct while she waited. (Id. ¶ 71.) While in the precinct, she played with (1) her hat by throwing it in the air; (2) an American flag by removingit from its stand, dropping it and waving it around a couple of times; and (3) a traffic cone by rocking it back and forth. (Id. ¶¶ 72-75.) Plaintiff grew impatient, and the female officer told Plaintiff she was acting erratically and to stop. (Id. ¶¶ 77-78.) Plaintiff replied, "Why do you think I am acting erratic, I'm just waiting for you guys to help me find my car." (Id. ¶ 78; Brock Dep. Tr. 90:1-3.)³ The female officer then told Plaintiff to stop moving. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 79.)

At this point, Plaintiff's account of the incident and Officer Diaz's account of the incident diverge. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that, after the female officer told her to stop moving, Officer Diaz returned and the female officer told him to arrest Plaintiff. (Brock Dep. Tr. 90:5-9.) As he approached Plaintiff to arrest her, Plaintiff ran out of the precinct. (Id. at 90:11-15.) Plaintiff put her hands up and said, "Don't arrest me, you don't need to arrest me, I'm just trying to find my car." (Id. at 90:16-21.) According to Plaintiff, the officers did not follow her into the street. (Id. at 91:5-7.) Instead, Plaintiff exited the precinct and stood in front of a parked police car with her hands up, insisting that there was no need for the officers to arrest her. (Id. at 90:17-91:2.) She did not run past the police car into the street, as Officer Diaz indicated. (Id. at 91:3-7.) Plaintiff then re-entered the precinct and said, "Please don't arrest me, I will come back in the precinct, I just need help finding my car." (Id. at 91:9-12.) Officer Diaz put handcuffs on Plaintiff and told her to sit down. (Id. at 91:13-14.) When she asked why she was being arrested, Officer Diaz said that they were not arresting her, but that they just wanted her to sit and be calm, and they would take her to her car. (Id. at 91:16-18.)

Officer Diaz testified at his deposition to a different sequence of events. According to Officer Diaz, when Plaintiff was playing with the American flag, both he and the female officertold Plaintiff repeatedly to leave the precinct. (Diaz Dep. Tr. 69:14-19.)⁴ Plaintiff complied and walked out of the precinct. (Id. at 69:19-22.) Approximately five to ten minutes later, Plaintiff returned to the precinct. Officer Diaz told her to leave again. It was only after he told Plaintiff that they would arrest her that she ran out of the precinct for a second time. (Id. at 81:2-14.) According to Officer Diaz, Plaintiff was standing in the street in oncoming traffic, and Officer Diaz went outside to tell her to get out of the street before she got hit by a car. (Id. at 83:17-21.) He brought her back into the precinct and told Plaintiff to remain in the precinct and wait for an ambulance. (Id. at 85:12-86:20.)

B. Plaintiff Is Taken to the Hospital

Plaintiff was detained at PSA 6 until an ambulance and Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") arrived at the scene. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 88-89.) According to the Emergency Medical Technicians ("EMTs"), Plaintiff refused to answer the EMTs' questions, argued with the "PD and EMS," and was only concerned about the whereabouts of her car. (Lax Decl. Ex. G.)⁵ The EMTs listed on a form under "Provider Impression" that Plaintiff had a "Behavioral Disorder." (Id.) Plaintiff was told that she was being taken to her car, but instead, Plaintiff was taken to an ambulance. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 96-97.) Specifically, Plaintiff asked if she was being taken to her car in the ambulance, and an EMT told her, "yes." (Id. ¶ 98.) Officer Diaz rode in the ambulance to the hospital with Plaintiff, and he was the only officer in the ambulance with her. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Counterstatement ¶ 286.)⁶

C. Plaintiff Is Admitted for Treatment

When Plaintiff arrived at the hospital, she sat down. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 106.) At one point, she approached the security desk, confused by why she was in the hospital. (Id. ¶ 108.) Dr. Erin Samuels, a non-party, admitted Plaintiff to the hospital at 10:32 p.m. as an emergency admission under Mental Hygiene Law ("MHL") § 9.39. (Lax Decl. Ex. K, at D55.) Plaintiff recalls that an unidentified doctor walked up to her and gave her an injection, which rendered her unconscious. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 110-11.) The next thing that Plaintiff remembers is waking up in a room full of doctors and someone removing her underwear. (Id. ¶ 112.) After 30 seconds, Plaintiff passed out again. (Id. ¶ 113.) Plaintiff next woke up in new clothes from the hospital. (Id. ¶ 114.)

Defendant Dr. Herman Anderson, as the attending physician in the emergency department assigned to Plaintiff, conducted the initial examination of Plaintiff. (Lax Decl. Ex. K, at D56; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 120.) Dr. Anderson stated in Plaintiff's medical records that he observed her to be hyperactive, uncooperative, and disorganized. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 121.) Dr. Anderson ordered "urinalysis urine toxicology and sedation," seeking to determine if Plaintiff was under the influence of a mood altering drug that would explain her condition. (Id. ¶¶ 129-30.) Plaintiff's toxicology was positive for cannabinoids. (Id. ¶ 131.) Dr. Anderson ordered Lorazepam and Haloperidol, as well as Sodium...