Crawley v. City of Syracuse

496 F.Supp.3d 718

Maurice CRAWLEY, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF SYRACUSE, Police Officer Vallon Smith, In his Individual Capacity, Chief of Police Frank Fowler, In his Individual Capacity, and Does 1-200, Defendants.

5:17-CV-1389

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed October 21, 2020

OF COUNSEL: A. CABRAL BONNER, ESQ., CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ., LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 211, Sausalito, CA 94965.

OF COUNSEL: JESSE P. RYDER, ESQ., RYDER LAW FIRM, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6739 Myers Road, East Syracuse, NY 13257.

OF COUNSEL: JOHN G. POWERS, ESQ., HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants, 1800 AXA Tower I, 100 Madison Street, Syracuse, NY 13202.

OF COUNSEL: DANIELLE PIRES, ESQ., CITY OF SYRACUSE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, Attorneys for Defendants, City Hall, Room 300, 233 East Washington Street, Syracuse, NY 13202.

MEMORANDUM–DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 28, 2017, plaintiff Maurice Crawley ("Crawley" or "plaintiff") filed this civil rights action against defendants City of Syracuse (the "City"), Syracuse Chief of Police Frank Fowler ("Chief Fowler"), Syracuse Police Officer Vallon Smith ("Officer Smith"), and Does 1-200 (collectively "defendants"). According to plaintiff's nine-count complaint, defendants violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state law when Officer Smith forcibly arrested him for recording video of a traffic stop from across the street.

On February 2, 2018, defendants moved for three different forms of pre-answer relief. First, defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss all but two of Crawley's civil rights claims: his § 1983 claim for excessive force against Officer Smith and his derivative § 1983 claim for municipal liability against the City under the theory recognized by the Supreme Court in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Second, defendants moved under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement to clarify certain allegations in, or alternatively, under Rule 12(f) to strike certain allegations from, plaintiff's operative complaint. Third and finally, defendants moved to bifurcate the § 1983 claim for excessive force against Officer Smith from the Monell claim against the City and to stay discovery on the municipal liability claim until after the parties resolved the excessive force claim against Officer Smith. Plaintiff opposed the relief in toto.

On August 3, 2018, shortly after hearing oral argument on all three motions, the Court granted defendants’ request for partial dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Crawley v. City of Syracuse , 2018 WL 3716782 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2018). However, the Court denied defendants’ motion to bifurcate the two § 1983 claims and rejected defendants’ request to strike allegations from the complaint and/or force plaintiff to replead. Id. Thereafter, the parties completed discovery on plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Officer Smith and the City.

On September 30, 2019, defendants moved under Rule 56 seeking partial summary judgment on Crawley's Monell claim against the City and to dismiss plaintiff's claims against Does 1-200 and Chief Fowler. Although defendants acknowledged that issues of fact precluded summary resolution of the excessive force claim against Officer Smith, defendants argued plaintiff had failed to marshal evidence in discovery from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the City itself had caused Officer's Smith's allegedly unlawful use of force. Dkt. No. 61. As for the Does, defendants argued plaintiff had failed to take the necessary steps to identify them during discovery. Id. And as for Chief Fowler, defendants argued that any individual-capacity claims against him were already dismissed at the 12(b)(6) stage and therefore he should have been removed from the caption as a named defendant before discovery even began. Id.

After Crawley filed his opposition to summary judgment, Dkt. No. 63, defendants moved to strike certain portions of plaintiff's response to the moving statement of material facts and sought to have other portions of the moving statement of facts deemed admitted, Dkt. No. 66. Plaintiff timely opposed the second motion, too. Dkt. No. 68. Both motions have been fully briefed and will be decided on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.¹

II. BACKGROUND

Although it may not be directly relevant to defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Monell claim, a blow-by-blow account of Crawley's roadside encounter with Officer Smith provides some useful context for understanding the parties’ current dispute. Plaintiff captured some of the incident on video and provided a link in his pleading.² As the Court observed when it decided defendants’ partial motion to dismiss:

On July 28, 2016, Officer Smith conducted a traffic stop in Syracuse. At the time, Crawley was sitting on his bicycle across the street from the stop and recorded the incident. Officer Smith yelled to plaintiff "say one word and your ass is going to jail, just so you know." Plaintiff responded that he could not hear him. Officer Smith approached Crawley and yelled "come here!" Plaintiff replied, "what are you doing officer? I didn't hear you." Defendant then demanded "give me your hand—turn around!" He then pulled Crawley off his bicycle, slammed him to the ground, and struck him on both sides of his head, face, and body. Officer Smith then said "don't fucking move, you understand me? I am going to fuck you up!" He continued to hit plaintiff in the face. Crawley yelled "I've got a defribrillator!" to which Smith replied "I don't give a fuck what you got! I told you to stop fucking coming around here." Officer Smith then hit plaintiff six or seven more times.

Crawley , 2018 WL 3716782, at *1. Thereafter, plaintiff was arrested and charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree and Resisting Arrest. Id. He was later convicted of Harassment in the Second Degree. Id.

Officer Smith arrested Crawley in July of 2016. At that time, the Syracuse Police Department ("SPD" or the "Department") had in place a written Use of Physical Force policy that was reviewed and approved as part of an accreditation process offered by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS"). Defs.’ Rule 7.1(a) Statement ("Defs.’ Facts"), Dkt. No. 61-1 ¶ 1.³ DCJS accreditation requires compliance with a variety of state and federal constitutional standards and "provides formal recognition that an organization meets or exceeds general expectations of quality in the field." Id. ¶¶ 2-3.

The SPD's training regimen on use-of-force principles also "emphasizes the standards set forth in, and derived from, ... Graham v. Connor as well as more recent Fourth Amendment case law related to police use of force." Defs.’ Facts ¶ 7. And the Department issues periodic training bulletins about "change[s] in the law that effects [sic ] policing" that officers must read and "sign off on [ ] to ensure their notification of the disclosed information." Id. ¶ 8. DCJS also requires an accredited law enforcement agency to conduct and document at least twenty-one hours of "in-service" training each year, which includes "at a minimum, firearms training, legal updates, [and] a review of the use of force and the use of deadly force." Id. ¶ 10.

Each year, the SPD conducts mandatory in-service training for all police officers, which includes a classroom component and a reality-based scenario that covers all the topics required to maintain DCJS accreditation. Defs.’ Facts ¶¶ 11-14. During the relevant time period, the Department's training program met all the requirements set out by DCJS to maintain accreditation, including those requirements on the use of force. Id. ¶ 11. As part of this accreditation program, DCJS verifies the curriculum used by the Department as well as the training attendance records it maintains for its police officers. Id. ¶ 15.

Chief Fowler computerized the SPD's use-of-force reporting system with a software program called "IA PRO / Blue Team." Defs.’ Facts ¶ 17. This program made each internal use-of-force investigation trackable, reviewable, and subject to uniform reporting criteria. Id. Under Chief Fowler's tenure, Department policy required all use-of-force incidents to be "formally investigated and evaluated by the Department's chain-of-command and Chief's Office." Id. ¶ 18.

At the time Officer Smith arrested Crawley, SPD policy "required an investigation to be conducted for every arrest or civilian encounter that involved a use of force." Defs.’ Facts ¶ 20. That use-of-force policy required each incident to be "investigated by a supervisor according to a written procedure, where evidence, photographs and witness accounts" would be taken. Id. ¶ 21. This policy also required that all information collected during this investigation be entered into the IA PRO / Blue Team system, "which produced an electronic report that was required to be reviewed and approved by a police lieutenant within the officer's chain of command." Id. ¶ 22. This use-of-force report was sent to the Department's Office of Professional Standards (better known as Internal Affairs) and to the Chief's Office. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. This review process occurred with every use-of-force incident that occurred under Chief Fowler's tenure. Id. ¶ 25. And on multiple occasions, Chief Fowler directed subordinates to conduct additional training in response to problematic trends revealed by the IA PRO / Blue Team reporting system. Id. ¶¶ 26-30.

A citizen who wants to lodge a complaint about a Syracuse police officer's conduct can do so in several ways. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 34. They are welcome to come to the SPD in person and file a formal written complaint. Id. ¶ 35. There is also an online complaint feature on the City's website that can be completed anonymously. Id. ¶ 36....