Crespo v. Rivera, 16 Civ. 708 (PGG)

HERMAN CRESPO, Plaintiff, v. DET. GERALDO RIVERA, Detective Investigating, Arresting Detective on Indictment 1562/11;LAUREN PERRY, Trial A.D.A.; BERNADETTE LUMAS CODRINGTON;CHARLES WHITT; DET. JAMES MCGUIRE; DET. JOSE MORALES; CYRUS VANCE, Defendants.

16 Civ. 708 (PGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED: September 19, 2018

September 18, 2018

ORDER

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:

Pro se Plaintiff Herman Crespo has sued the New York County District Attorney, three Assistant District Attorneys ("ADAs"), and three New York City Police Department ("NYPD") detectives for alleged misconduct in connection with a burglary prosecution of Plaintiff from August 2011 to January 2013. Plaintiff was acquitted at trial. Plaintiff claims that Defendants knew that he was not guilty of the charged offense, and falsely claimed that there was DNA and videotape evidence implicating him. Plaintiff also alleges that the District Attorney did not properly train and supervise the Defendant ADAs.

The Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserts claims under (1) Section 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, denial of fair trial rights, cruel and unusual punishment, abuse of process, and equal protection; and (2) state law for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, equal protection under the New York State Constitution, and defamation. The Amended Complaint includes a Monell claim against the District Attorney.

Defendants have moved to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that (1) Plaintiff's claims against the ADAs are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and absolute immunity; (2) Plaintiff has not alleged a pattern or practice in connection with his Monell claim; (3) Plaintiff's claims against the detectives for false arrest and imprisonment are time-barred; (4) the malicious prosecution and denial of fair trial claims against Rivera fails, because his grand jury testimony may not be used against him; and (5) none of Plaintiff's remaining causes of action state a claim. Because all of Plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed, this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

BACKGROUND¹

I. FACTS

Pro se Plaintiff Herman Crespo resides in the Bronx. (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 45) at 2)²

Defendant Cyrus Vance, Jr. is the District Attorney for New York County. Defendants Bernadette Lumas Codrington and Lauren Perry are ADAs in Vance's office. (Id. at 2) The Amended Complaint also names a John Doe Defendant, who has been identified as Assistant District Attorney Charles Whitt. (Id. at 2; DA Br. (Dkt. No. 82) at 7, 9)

Defendants Geraldo Rivera and Jose Morales are NYPD detectives. (Id. at 3, 4) The Complaint also names Detective "James McGuire" as a defendant.³ (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 45) at 1)

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff was charged in an indictment with having committed burglary in the second degree. The burglary charge arises from an April 17, 2007 break-in at a 99 cent store located at 244 West 23rd Street in Manhattan. (Id. at 6-7; Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 89) at 34; see March Decl., Ex. A (Indictment) (Dkt. No. 86-1) at 1))

The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was arrested on the burglary charge by Detectives Rivera, Morales, and McGuire on August 22, 2011 at about 6:00 p.m. (Id. at 4, 21; Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 89) at 6) According to Plaintiff, the detectives knocked on his door without announcing that they were police officers. (Id. at 24) Plaintiff answered the door, and two of the detectives entered into his apartment. Detective Rivera asked Plaintiff whether he had a case pending in court. (Id. at 14) Plaintiff stated that he had a September 6, 2011 court date, and he showed Rivera a "court slip" reflecting that date. (Id. at 16, 37; Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 89) at 6) Rivera falsely told Plaintiff that his court date had been moved up, and that the detectives were there to bring him to court. (Id. at 16; Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 89) at 6) The detectives then brought Plaintiff to their unmarked car and drove him to the 10th Precinct. (Id. at 5, 16)

Plaintiff was questioned at the Tenth Precinct, and at about 10:00 p.m., he was brought to the Manhattan Detention Complex. (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 45) at 5; Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 89) at 6) Plaintiff remained there until the next morning, when he was taken to court.Plaintiff was not arraigned that day, however, and was brought back to the Manhattan jail. (Id.) The next day, Plaintiff was arraigned and bail was set at $8,000. (Id. at 6, 9)

Because Plaintiff was not able to post bail, he remained in jail for the next seventeen and a half months. (Id. at 8) He proceeded to trial in January 2013, and on January 29, 2013, he was found not guilty. (Id. at 35)

Plaintiff claims that Defendants engaged in a variety of misconduct in connection with his case. For example, Plaintiff asserts that ADA Codrington and Detective Rivera falsely told the grand jury that Plaintiff had used a "bloody crowbar" to break into the 99 cent store. (Id. at 7; Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 93) at 11 (stating that Rivera told the grand jury, "it was a bloody crowbar")) According to Plaintiff, ADA Codrington made these statements despite knowing that the DNA on the crowbar belonged to a female. (Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 89) at 7) Plaintiff further alleges that Rivera knew that Plaintiff did not commit the burglary (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 45) at 28), and knew that there was no blood on the crowbar. (Pltf. Opp. (Dkt. No. 93) at 23) Plaintiff also claims that ADA Codrington falsely told the grand jury that she had DNA evidence demonstrating that Crespo had removed merchandise from the store. (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 45) at 7)

At Plaintiff's arraignment, ADA Whitt stated that the People had evidence of a bloody crowbar with Plaintiff's DNA on it. (Id. at 9) Plaintiff further claims that Whitt requested that a high bail be set, so that Plaintiff would remain in jail pending trial. (Id. at 10)

As to ADA Perry, Plaintiff claims that she falsely represented during court appearances that there was videotape of the burglary showing Plaintiff's face. Perry later retracted this claim, admitting that there was no such videotape. (Id. at 13) Plaintiff also assertsthat Perry knew that there was insufficient evidence to convict Plaintiff, that the alleged DNA was "taken unlawfully," and that the DNA had "never been tested for blood." (Id. at 11)

The Amended Complaint further alleges that a forensic report confirms that the crowbar had not been tested for blood. The forensic report and a laboratory report state that there is insufficient evidence to conclude whose DNA is on the crowbar. (Id. at 12, 44) Plaintiff further claims that there is no proof that a crowbar was used to commit the burglary, nor is there evidence placing Plaintiff in the area of the 99 cent store before, during, or after the burglary. (Id. at 12)

Interpreting the Amended Complaint liberally, it asserts (1) claims under Section 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, denial of fair trial rights, due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, equal protection, and defamation. The Amended Complaint also asserts a Monell claim against District Attorney Vance for failure to train and supervise the Defendant ADAs.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Complaint was filed on January 28, 2016. (Dkt. No. 2) In letters dated December 8, 2016 and January 18, 2017, defense counsel identified John Doe Defendants referenced in the Complaint, including ADA Codrington, Detective James McNair, and Detective Morales, and provided addresses for service. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 37) The Amended Complaint was filed on March 10, 2017, and added as defendants ADA Codrington, "Arraignment A.D.A. John Doe," Detective James McGuire, and Detective Jose Morales. (Dkt. No. 45) Plaintiff did not name Detective James McNair as a defendant. Defendants later identified "Arraignment A.D.A. John Doe" as Charles Whitt. (See DA Br. (Dkt. No. 82) at 7; Notice of Appearance (Dkt. No. 47))

On June 2, 2017, this Court denied Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint as moot, dismissed claims against certain Defendants as frivolous, added Cyrus Vance, Jr. to the case as the proper party against whom the Monell claim could be brought, instructed the Clerk of Court to arrange for service of the Amended Complaint on certain Defendants, and stayed Plaintiff's time to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint until service was complete. (Dkt. No. 66)

Defendants Codrington, Vance, Whitt, and Morales were served in June and July 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 67, 71, 72, 77) Service was not effected on Defendant James McGuire, because there was "[n]o one with that name at [the service] location." (Dkt. No. 76)

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 8 and 16, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 81, 84); Plaintiff filed oppositions on March 9 and April 6, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 89 & 93); and Defendants filed replies on April 6 and 9, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 94, 96) Plaintiff filed a supplementary letter on May 1, 2018. (Dkt. No. 98)

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

"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)). "In considering a motion to dismiss . . . the court is to accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint," Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2002)), and must "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Id. (citing Fernandez v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 45, 51 (2d Cir. 2006)).

A complaint is inadequately...