Daniels v. Taylor

443 F.Supp.3d 471

Deshawn DANIELS, Plaintiff,

v.Detective Brian TAYLOR, Detective James Cleary, Sergeant Wesley Fradera, and Detective Neil Magliano, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-3717 (RA)

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

Signed March 11, 2020

Gregory S. Antollino, Gregory Antollino, Attorney at Law, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

William Keaupuni Akina, Suzanne Emily Funes, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Deshawn Daniels brought this action against the City of New York and five police officers, Detective Brian Taylor, Detective Brian Taylor, Detective James Cleary, Sergeant Wesley Fradera, and Detective Neil Magliano, for alleged violations of his constitutional rights arising out of a March 18, 2015 traffic stop. On March 31, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the City of New York's motion to dismiss, denied Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on his sole surviving claim as well as two claims that were dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. 33. On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 47. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 66. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts, taken from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 47, are assumed true for purposes of this motion to dismiss unless otherwise noted. See Stadnick v. Vivint Solar, Inc. , 861 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2017).

On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff, a black man in his thirties, was pulled over by undercover police officers stationed near the corner of 148th Street and Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard in Manhattan. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 19, 20. The officers asked Plaintiff to step out of his vehicle and told him that he was "being booked" for making an illegal left turn approximately seven blocks north of where he was pulled over. Id. ¶¶ 27, 28. The officers opened Plaintiff's car door, pulled him out of his car, searched him, placed him in the back of the officers' car, and searched his vehicle without his consent. Id. ¶ 29. One officer allegedly asked him, "How you own a Mercedes convertible?" Id. ¶ 30.

The officers brought Plaintiff back to the local precinct and placed him in a cell for two to three hours. Id. ¶¶ 31, 34. They told him they had to perform a strip search. Id. ¶ 32. They required him to remove all of his clothing except his underwear in front of the other individuals in the holding cell, handcuffed him, and held him down on a table. Id. ¶¶ 35–36. Plaintiff responded by telling the officers, "this is crazy" and "oh my god this is not right!" Id. ¶ 37. The officers searched Plaintiff, put him against a wall, and one of the officers attempted to conduct an anal cavity check while wearing an unlubricated latex glove. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. Plaintiff turned his backside against the wall so that the officer could not perform the cavity check. Id. ¶ 41. The officers then picked Plaintiff up, slammed him onto the table, and twisted his arm. This action caused Plaintiff's arm to bleed because his handcuffs were still on. Id. ¶¶ 42, 44. Plaintiff screamed in pain while three or four officers held him down on the table. Id. ¶ 44. The officers then told Plaintiff to put his clothes back on and they put him back in his cell. Id. ¶ 47. When Plaintiff requested medical attention, the officers responded that he would be leaving soon and could get medical attention himself. Id.

The officers released Plaintiff three hours later. Id. ¶ 49. They returned Plaintiffs' items to him, but initially withheld some of the cash that Plaintiff had on him when he was arrested. Id. After muttering to one another, the officers returned $ 100 in cash to the Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 51. The officers provided Plaintiff with a property receipt and a desk appearance ticket. Id. ¶ 49; Akina Decl. Ex. B; Akina Decl. Ex. C.¹ Both the property receipt and desk appearance ticket indicated that Plaintiff was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree in violation of New York Penal Law 265.01. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 52; Akina Decl. Ex. B; Akina Decl. Ex. C. On April 14, 2015, Detective Brian Taylor filed a Complaint in New York County Criminal Court charging Plaintiff with a misdemeanor under New York Penal Law 265.01, stating that he "recovered a butterfly knife from the defendant's inside jacket pocket." Second Akina Decl. Ex. G. After Plaintiff received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ("ACD") on December 14, 2015 pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 170.55, the case was dismissed on June 13, 2016. Id. ¶ 54; Akina Decl. Ex. D.

The incident at the precinct allegedly exacerbated a prior injury to Plaintiff's right hand, which he sustained in 2012 when another police officer slammed him into the ground and smashed his hand with a boot. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 18, 54. Since the March 2015 incident, Plaintiff claims to have experienced pain that "radiates from his pink[y] to his left arm" and cannot lift more than three pounds with his bad hand. Id. ¶¶ 54, 56. Plaintiff reported the incident to the Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB"). Id. ¶ 57. The Complaint was referred to the Civil Complaint Review Board ("CCRB"). Id.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More than three years later, on April 26, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this action. Dkts. 1,3. On April 30, 2018, he filed an Amended Complaint against the City of New York and five "John Doe" Defendants. Dkt. 4. The Amended Complaint brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for unequal treatment on the basis of race, illegal search and seizure, excessive force, malicious prosecution, deprivation of a fair trial, failure to intervene, supervisory liability, and municipal liability.² The City moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a motion for equitable tolling. Dkts. 22-24.

On March 31, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the City's motion to dismiss. Dkt. 33. Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's § 1981 claims on the ground that § 1983 is the exclusive private right of action against state actors. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for illegal search and excessive use of force because they were time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The Court, however, denied the City's motion with respect to Plaintiff's claim for deprivation of the right to a fair trial under § 1983. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's claims for failure to intervene, supervisory liability, and municipal liability but did so without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to re-plead the claims, so long as he pled factual allegations connecting them to his sole surviving claim for deprivation of the right to a fair trial. Finally, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 29, 2019 raising claims under § 1983 for deprivation of a fair trial and failure to intervene.³ Dkt. 47. The Second Amended Complaint does not name the City as a defendant or raise a claim for municipal liability.⁴ The City was therefore terminated as a defendant on April 29, 2019.

At the Court's request, the parties filed supplemental briefing addressing the Supreme Court's June 20, 2019 decision in McDonough v. Smith , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 2156, 204 L.Ed.2d 506 (2019). Dkts. 77-78.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (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.

DISCUSSION

I. Fair Trial Claim

"When a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury's decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial, and the harm occasioned by such an unconscionable action is redressable in an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039 , 838 F.3d 265, 275 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority , 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) ). Plaintiff's fair trial claim is based on his allegation that the officers "falsified a charge that he was in possession of a dangerous weapon"—a butterfly knife—which Plaintiff alleges "does not exist." Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 52, 53, 80. After having originally been charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree in violation of New York Penal Law 265.01, Plaintiff received an ACD on December 14, 2015, and his case was dismissed on June 13, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 52, 54; Akina Decl. Ex. D; Second Akina Decl. Ex. G.

The core of the dispute on this motion is whether Plaintiff's ACD bars his fair trial claim in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in McDonough v. Smith. ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 204 L.Ed.2d 506 (2019). On appeal in McDonough was a Second Circuit decision holding that "a fabrication of evidence claim accrues (1) when a plaintiff learns of the fabrication and it is used against him, and (2) his liberty has been deprived in some way." McDonough v. Smith , 898 F.3d 259, 266 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted); see also id. at 267 ("Because the injury for this constitutional violation occurs at the time the evidence is used against the defendant to deprive him of his liberty, whether it be at the time he is arrested, faces trial, or is convicted, it is when he becomes aware of that tainted evidence and its improper use that...