Castro v. Smith

1

MARCELINO CASTRO, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN JANET SMITH AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER OCTAVIAN DUGGINS, Defendants.

No. 16-CV-8147 (JGLC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 22, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge:

Currently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Marcelino Castro (“Plaintiff”), ECF No. 123, seeking spoliation sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) against Defendants Captain Janet Smith (“Smith”) and Corrections Officer Octavian Duggins (“Duggins”) (collectively “Defendants”) as a penalty for the alleged destruction of video footage of the incident at issue in this case. Plaintiff moves for the Court to issue an instruction that the jury may draw an adverse inference against Defendants as a result of the alleged destruction, to bar Defendants from presenting evidence regarding the investigation of the September 10, 2015 incident (the “Incident”) by the New York City Department of Corrections (the “DOC”) and to allow Plaintiff to present evidence regarding the alleged destruction of the video footage. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case have been previously described in the Court's summary judgment ruling. Opinion & Order, ECF No. 96 (“Summ. J. Op.”). As such, the Court repeats only the relevant facts here.

I. The September 10, 2015 Incident

The incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's lawsuit occurred when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Eric M. Taylor Center (“EMTC”) on Rikers Island. Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23 (“SAC”); ECF No. 83-3 (“Pl. Dep”) 93:20-24. On September 10, 2015 Plaintiff went to the clinic to “ask for [his] medication.” Id. 113:7-8. Plaintiff then “wait[ed] in line for sick call for approximately 40 minutes,” until Plaintiff was informed that the doctor was not going to give him the medication Plaintiff was requesting. SAC at 7; Pl. Dep. 114:3-6.

At approximately 11:15 a.m., Smith “received a call that [Plaintiff] was inside the medical clinic and was acting irate and aggressive.” Defs. Rule 56.1 Statement, ECF No. 82 (“56.1 Stmt.”) ¶ 24. Smith went to the clinic where Plaintiff was “yelling and screaming, saying he wanted his medication.” ECF No. 83-7 (“Smith Dep.”) 77:3-4. Upon speaking to the doctor, Smith “learned that [Plaintiff] had been requesting drugs that the staff was not going to prescribe” and that Plaintiff “had previously threatened a medical staff member inside the clinic.” Id. 77:7-21; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26. Plaintiff instead maintains that he was at the clinic to ask the doctor to renew his prescription and that he “heard a CO misinform the doctor on duty that [he] was seeking pain medication for which he did not have a prescription.” Pl. Dep. 114:13-14, 116:22-25; SAC at 7.

Smith returned to Plaintiff and told him that she was going to take him back to his housing area, but that she would bring him back to the clinic before she left the facility. Smith Dep. 78:10-14, 80:14-19; ECF No. 83-8 (“Duggins Dep.”) 83:9-14. Plaintiff contends that Smith told him to come back the next day. Second Amended Complaint II, ECF No. 33 (“SAC II”). Plaintiff refused to leave, explaining that he was prescribed medication for his kidney stones that DOC had neglected to administer. SAC at 7; Pl. Dep. 117:1-7.

Defendants maintain that Plaintiff then threatened to choke Smith. Smith Dep. 80:9-12; Duggins Dep. 91:10-15. After Plaintiff argued with Smith for approximately five minutes, Smith “grabbed [him] by the neck.” 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 35; Pl. Dep. 117:7-10. Plaintiff contends he responded “quick” by “push[ing] [Smith's] hand out.” Id. 121:2-9. Defendants assert that though Plaintiff appeared to briefly comply with orders to leave the clinic, as Plaintiff and Smith were about to walk out of the clinic, Plaintiff turned around and tried to strike Smith, but missed. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 36; Smith Dep. 81:20-82:2. Officers then put Plaintiff up against the wall and Smith warned that she was “going to utilize chemical agents.” Id. 83:7-23; Duggins Dep. 83:22-84:3. Plaintiff knocked the chemical agent out of Smith's hand. Smith Dep. 84:12-17; ECF No. 83-9 (“Ortiz Dep.”) 98:17-18.

Plaintiff's and Defendants' accounts of what happened next diverge, though all agree that Plaintiff was subsequently hit in the face. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Smith punched him in the face, but Plaintiff testified in his deposition that the “officer working in the back, he punched me in the face,” referring to Duggins. SAC at 7; Pl. Dep. 119:23-24, 129:13-18; 135:89. Smith contends that instead, when Plaintiff knocked the chemical agent out of her hands, “that's when [she] tried to create space, so [she] swung and inadvertently hit him in the face, in the facial area.” Smith Dep. 122:13-16. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a broken and bloody nose, bruising to his right side and bruising on his throat. SAC at 7; Pl. Dep. 122:17-20. Plaintiff testified that after he was hit in the face, the officers cleaned up the blood on Plaintiff's face. Id. 136:24-137:1.

Plaintiff was subsequently “removed from the medical clinic by several officers,” 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 45, though the parties dispute the circumstances under which Plaintiff's removal occurred, see Summ. J. Op. at 5-7. Subsequently, Plaintiff's handcuffs were removed, and Plaintiff was photographed. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 71; Pl. Dep. 149:20-21. Defendants contend that the photographs “do not depict any injuries on the plaintiff.” 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 74. Plaintiff argues that the investigators taking the photographs “just took pictures that [were] convenient for them.” Pl. Dep. 123:18-19. He nonetheless asserts that the photographs showed that his “lip [was] swollen,” that one side of his nose was “lifted up,” that his “neck and the front [were] red” from being grabbed and that he sustained several bruises. Id. 146:10-24. Plaintiff was examined approximately two hours after the Incident by a physician's assistant, who noted “Yes” on a medical form next to the question, “Did the patient have a blow to the head?” but did not note any abnormalities to Plaintiff's head, eyes, ears, nose or throat. See ECF No. 83-6 (“O'Grady Report”) at 3-4; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 67.

II. Video Footage of the Incident

At some point during the altercation, a DOC “Probe Team” arrived, including Officer Tracy Storey who “operated the [h]andheld camera during the alarm.” ECF No. 125-8 (“Storey Report”); see also ECF No. 125-9 (“Alarm Response Logbook”) (noting that [hand]held camera was taken).

It is unclear from the record exactly at what point during the Incident the Probe Team arrived. One report notes that the Probe Team arrived at 11:13 a.m. and exited at 11:15 a.m. Alarm Response Logbook. Storey indicated in her report that she arrived at some point prior to Plaintiff being handcuffed. Storey Report (stating that Plaintiff “was handcuffed by Captain David Lenza #1027 and was escorted to the intake area by the Probe Team”). Officer Leisha Ortiz testified that the “Probe Team comes, Captain Lenza comes, applies the restraints, get him to his feet, and they took him to intake.” Ortiz Dep. 100:2-4; see also ECF No. 125-23 (“Incident Review Form”) at ¶ 000003 (“Castro-Martinez was forced to put his hands on the wall and then the Probe Team arrived in the area with a camera. The officers put Castro's hands behind his back and cuffed, then put him on the floor.”).

At least one report suggests that the Probe Team arrived after Plaintiff was already handcuffed. See ECF No. 125-10 (“Levy Report”) at ¶ 000012 (“[Plaintiff] continued to resist and was flexcuffed by Captain Lenza #1027. The Probe team arrived and escorted [Plaintiff] to the Intake terminating the incident.”). Captain David Levy testified that “[t]here was a Probe Team that went down with a video camera, but at that point, the use of force had already occurred.” ECF No. 125-6 (“Levy Dep.”) 44:22-24.

Plaintiff did not testify to when the Probe Team arrived, but his testimony gives some detail about what may have been captured on camera. He stated “you can see in the video. They threw me on the floor, and on the clinic, you see what happened in the hallway.” Pl. Dep. 127:21-23; see also id. 126:10-127:24.

Plaintiff provided further detail about the camera, along with the Probe Team, in a February 6, 2016 interview with an investigator:

A: And their they coming with the camera, there the person -- the pers-- the probe team coming with the camera. People check-- checking my -- my hands, slamming my hands in the back and -- and putting the handcuff, and then -- and putting me on the floor. They picking me up, sending me in chain.

Q: So you said you -- you got your nose broken?

A: Yeah, I got my nose blood cut --

Q: How did they break your nose?

A: My nose leaking because somebody with - with -- with force is hitting me in my nose, I don't know why he hitting me on my nose.

Q: Did it happen when you hit the floor, or did somebody punch you?

A: No. Somebody punched me in the nose.

ECF No. 125-2 (“Castro Interview”) 5:7-18. Plaintiff continued to say:

A: -- I think about this on the camera, with some copy coming, on the camera, I got hit, I got (unclear) somebody hitting me too (unclear) the captain (unclear).

Q: Okay.

A: (Unclear). I don't know if he (unclear) -- but he take picture. I told him, “Take a picture there and there” --

Q: I got you.

Id. 6:13-19. In the interview, Plaintiff discusses the Probe Team coming in with the camera and then details his broken nose. In the second excerpt, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to the alleged punch in the nose or to another moment. Plaintiff is uncertain as to whether he believes that he was punched again after ...