Bugman v. City of Tonawanda

1

RICHARD BUGMAN, JR., Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF TONAWANDA, NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-CV-313-LJV-MJR

United States District Court, W.D. New York

August 26, 2022

DECISION & ORDER

LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On February 26, 2021, the plaintiff, Richard Bugman, Jr. commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law. Docket Item 1. The complaint alleges that the defendants-the City of Tonawanda, the Town of Colonie, and various Tonawanda and Colonie police officers-violated Bugman's constitutional rights and New York State law when Tonawanda police officers pulled him over as he was driving a rental car.^[1] Id. After the Colonie defendants^[2] moved to dismiss the complaint, Bugman filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2021. Docket Items 12 19. The Colonie defendants renewed their motion to dismiss two days later, Docket Item 20, and the Tonawanda defendants^[3] then moved for judgment on the pleadings on July 23, 2021, Docket Item 28.

In the meantime, on April 19, 2021, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 13. After the Colonie defendants' and the Tonawanda defendants' motions were fully briefed, see Docket Items 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 33, Judge Roemer heard oral argument on both motions in September 2021, see Docket Item 34. The parties then submitted additional post-argument briefing. Docket Items 35-40.

On March 4, 2022, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that both motions should be granted and the amended complaint dismissed. Docket Item 43. In the alternative, Judge Roemer recommended dismissing all of Bugman's claims on the merits except his negligence claim against the Colonie defendants and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. Id. at 35.

Bugman and the Tonawanda defendants objected to the R&R on April 21, 2022. Docket Items 46, 47. Bugman says that Judge Roemer erred in recommending that his section 1983 false arrest/false imprisonment and unreasonable search claims be dismissed. Docket Item 46. Bugman also says that because those claims should proceed, his section 1983 failure-to-intervene claim and his state law assault and battery claims should proceed as well.^[4] Id. The Tonawanda defendants say that this Court should accept Judge Roemer's recommendation to dismiss Bugman's federal claims but argue “in an abundance of caution” that this Court should dismiss Bugman's negligence claim on the merits rather than decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. Docket Item 47. The parties responded to each other's objections on May 17 and May 20, 2022, Docket Items 48, 49, but neither side filed a reply.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The court must review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the R&R; the record in this case; the objections and responses; and the materials submitted to Judge Roemer. Based on that de novo review, the Court accepts in part and respectfully rejects in part Judge Roemer's recommendations. Bugman's section 1983 false arrest/false imprisonment, unreasonable search, and failure-to-intervene claims against Tonawanda police officers Nathan Schultz, Kyle Gallivan, and Robert Clontz, as well as his battery and assault claims against those defendants, may proceed. Bugman's remaining claims are dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[5]

On February 12, 2020, Bugman and his family rented a Chrysler minivan from the Buffalo International Airport Dollar Rent-A-Car, which is owned by Hertz. Docket Item 19 at ¶¶ 30-31. Bugman and his family then drove the car to Orlando, Florida, for a family vacation. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. “After a pleasant and uneventful week in Orlando,” Bugman and his family drove back to Buffalo on February 22, 2020. Id. at ¶ 37.

The following afternoon, as Bugman was driving to the Buffalo airport to return the van, Tonawanda police officer Nathan Schultz “pulled over [] Bugman on the Twin Cities Memorial Highway.” Id. at ¶¶ 41, 45. Bugman sat in his car for about fifteen minutes without any further explanation about why he was stopped. Id. at ¶¶ 48-56. In the meantime, Kyle Gallivan and Robert Clontz, two other Tonawanda police officers, arrived on the scene “with lights blazing and sirens blaring” and “boxed [Bugman] in.” Id. at ¶¶ 51-53.

Schultz then began to “scream” demands at Bugman over his loudspeaker. Id. at ¶¶ 54-56. Bugman complied with those demands, exited the rental car “with his hands up and [his] wallet and license in his hands,” and “walk[ed] backwards towards the officers.” Id. at ¶¶ 59, 64. “During this time,” Schultz “pointed his handgun at [] Bugman's head.” Id. at ¶ 60. After Bugman was handcuffed, the officers “told him that he was driving a stolen vehicle.” Id. at ¶ 65.

That was incorrect. Two days before Bugman was pulled over, a Hertz employee reported to the Town of Colonie Police Department that a white Chrysler Pacifica had been stolen. Id. at ¶¶ 66-68. That white van-the same make and model as Bugman's black rental van-had license plate number JBE1561, very similar to the JBE1516 license plate number on Bugman's rental van. Id. at ¶ 66. But “either Hertz reported . . . the wrong license plate number for the stolen vehicle” to the Town of Colonie Police Department or the “the Town of Colonie Police Department entered the wrong license plate number on the incident report.” Id. at ¶ 102. So “the vehicle reported stolen by Hertz” on the Colonie incident report “was a 2019 white Chrysler Pacifica[ with] license plate number JBE1516,” rather than its correct license plate number of JBE1561. Id. at ¶ 102.

As a result of that error, the license plate number Hertz reported for the stolen white Chrysler van matched the actual license plate number on the black Chrysler van that Bugman was driving.^[6] And according to Schultz, “the plate reader in his vehicle alerted him that the Chrysler minivan driven by [] Bugman was stolen when [he] passed by.” Id. at ¶ 70. Schultz then “manually entered into the stolen car system license plate number JBE1516”-in other words, the license plate number on Bugman's car. Id. at ¶ 71. That “showed that the license plate matched the license plate of the stolen vehicle.” Id.

Bugman, who therefore had been detained due to what we now know was a typo, tried to explain to the officers that he had “rented the Chrysler minivan from Hertz a week before[] and that the rental agreement was in the glove compartment.” Id. at ¶ 72. But the officers “made no immediate attempt to verify what [] Bugman had told them.” Id. at ¶ 73. Instead, they moved Bugman-now handcuffed-to the backseat of Schultz's police car. Id. at ¶ 74.

“At some point while [] Bugman was in the back of the police vehicle, the [o]fficers requested permission to search the vehicle for the rental agreement.” Id. at ¶ 83. Bugman gave them permission to “search the glove compartment[] only.” Id. at ¶ 84. But the officers instead proceeded to “t[ear] apart the vehicle and search[] every inch of the [rental van],” even the “spare tire compartment.” Id. at ¶¶ 85-86. “The [o]fficers did not find any evidence of illegal activity in the Chrysler minivan, but [they] did find the rental agreement in the glove compartment just as [] Bugman told [them they would].” Id. at ¶ 88.

At some point during this investigation, Schultz “contacted the Town of Colonie Police Department and spoke with” a Colonie police investigator “for a very long time.” Id. at ¶¶ 78-80. Ultimately, the investigator and the officers “agreed to release [] Bugman from custody.” Id. at ¶ 81. By the time he was released, Bugman had been handcuffed for about thirty minutes. Id. at ¶ 82. Bugman, who was “[f]urious” about the encounter, then returned the car to the airport without further incident. Id. at ¶¶ 89, 92.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The standard for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is “the same standard [that applies] to dismissals pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 429 (2d Cir. 2011) (alterations omitted). “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.'” 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).

DISCUSSION

I. FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT CLAIM^[7]

Judge Roemer recommended dismissing Bugman's section 1983 claim for false arrest/false imprisonment because the Tonawanda officers had probable cause to arrest Bugman.^[8] Docket Item 43 at 16-22. “[P]robable cause to arrest is a complete defense to a claim of false arrest.”^[9] Posr v. Court Officer Shield No. 207, 180 F.3d 409, 414 (2d Cir. 1999). “Officers have probable cause to arrest when they ‘have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime.'” Id. (quoting ...