Kuar v. Mawn

Shawn M. Kuar, Plaintiff, v. Michael P. Mawn, et al., Defendants.

No. 08-CV-4401 (JFB) (ETB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date: March 4, 2011

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Joseph F. Bianco, District Judge:

Plaintiff Shawn M. Kuar ("plaintiff" or "Kuar") brought this action, pro se, against defendants New York State Trooper Michael P. Mawn ("Mawn"), Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney Melissa Price ("Price"), and Mark G. Kirshner, Esq. ("Kirshner"), alleging various constitutional and state common law claims stemming from a February 7, 2008 incident during which Mawn allegedly shot and used pepper spray against plaintiff. Specifically, plaintiff has brought Fourth Amendment excessive force and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims against Mawn, along with state common law claims for assault, battery, and negligence. Plaintiff has also alleged that defendant Price conspired with defendant Kirshner to deprive plaintiff of his right to counsel and his right to a jury trial in order to "Falsely Justify the Unlawful Actions of defendant Mawn." (Am. Compl. at 1 ¶ (d).) Defendant Mawn has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the grounds of, inter alia, collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, and under the doctrine set forth by Heck v. Humphrey. Defendant Price has moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution must fail due to plaintiff's conviction in state court, and (2) Price is immune from liability for such claims based upon her actions as a prosecutor.¹ For the reasons set forth herein, the Court dismisses the claims against defendant Price on the ground of absolute immunity. As to defendant Mawn's motion to dismiss, the Court grants the motion to dismiss plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims, but denies defendant Mawn's motion in all other respects. However, as set forth in detail infra, the Court precludes plaintiff from relying on certain factual assertions in the Amended Complaint that are clearly contradictory to statements that were made by plaintiff during his plea allocution and were adopted by the state court in accepting plaintiff's plea.

I. Background

A. Facts²

Plaintiff alleges that on February 7, 2008, he was outside of his daughter's home when he was shot in the back of the leg by defendant Mawn, a New York State Trooper. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) According to the Amended Complaint, Mawn exited his patrol vehicle after plaintiff's car had become disabled. (Id. ¶ 2.) Mawn then ordered plaintiff to raise his hands in the air, and drew and aimed his sidearm at plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff complied with Mawn's commands and told Mawn "please don't shoot." (Id.) Mawn then allegedly approached plaintiff "with his weapon aimed in a highly agitated state, " which caused plaintiff "to flee toward his daughter's home in fear for his life." (Id. ¶ 3.) Mawn pursued plaintiff and shot him in the back of plaintiff's left leg "although no crime had been committed by the plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 4.) Subsequently, while plaintiff was "incapacitated by the bullet wound, " Mawn allegedly sprayed "a copious amount of chemical spray" into plaintiff's face. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims that "[a]t no time" did he "fight, struggle with or pose any physical threat to defendant Trooper Mawn." (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff further alleges that Mawn made false written statements in an affidavit in support of plaintiff's arrest that "misrepresented... plaintiff's role in the initial discharge of [Mawn's] weapon." (Id. ¶ 8.)

As to defendant Price, plaintiff alleges that Price initiated the prosecution against him based upon the "false statement of events reduced to writing by defendant Mawn." (Id.¶ 19.) Plaintiff claims that Price later became aware of exculpatory evidence regarding plaintiff, including that "plaintiff did not in fact grab defendant Mawn's gun causing it to fire" and that "plaintiff was not shot from extremely close range, " but she nevertheless "unlawfully embark[ed] upon a plan to protect defendant Mawn from the truth of the occurrences of February 7, 2008." (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Finally, plaintiff asserts that Price and Kirshner entered into a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his right to counsel and his right to a jury trial. (Id. ¶ 22.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on Febuary 5, 2010. Defendant Price filed her motion to dismiss on March 1, 2010, and defendant Mawn filed his motion to dismiss on March 12, 2010. The docket reflects that plaintiff filed two responses in opposition, one on April 15, 2010 and one on April 21, 2010, but the substance of these responses is substantively identical and they will be referred to collectively as "plaintiff's opposition."³ Defendants Price and Mawn filed their replies on April 21, 2010. This motion is fully submitted, and the Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties.

II. Standard of Review

In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006). "In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege a plausible set of facts sufficient 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Operating Local 649 Annuity Trust Fund v. Smith Barney Fund Mgmt. LLC, 595 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). This standard does not require "heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

The Supreme Court recently clarified the appropriate pleading standard in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, setting forth a two-pronged approach for courts deciding a motion to dismiss. — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). The Court instructed district courts to first "identify[ ] pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Though "legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. Second, if a complaint contains "well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. "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. 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. at 1949 (quoting and citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (internal citations omitted)).

Where, as here, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, "[c]ourts are obliged to construe the [plaintiff's] pleadings... liberally." McCluskey v. N.Y. State Unified Court Sys., No. 10-CV-2144 (JFB)(ETB), 2010 WL 2558624, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2010) (citing Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) and McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004)). Nonetheless, even though the Court construes a pro se complaint liberally, the complaint must still "'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face'" to survive a motion to dismiss. Mancuso v. Hynes, No. 09-CV-4393, 2010 WL 2131009, at *1 (2d Cir. May 27, 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (applying Twombly and Iqbal to pro se complaint).

III. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court construes plaintiff's constitutional claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.⁴ Section 1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the united States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 n.3 (1979). For claims under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that "(1) the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person who was acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States." Snider v. Dylag, 188 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Here, for purposes of the motions to dismiss, the parties do not dispute that defendants were acting under color of state law. Thus, the question presented in this case is whether defendants' conduct deprived plaintiff of the various rights he asserts under the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Court notes that Mawn's and Price's motions are based, in large part, upon plaintiff's guilty plea in state court for attempted assault in the second degree in connection with the February 7, 2008 incident. Accordingly, defendant Mawn submitted a copy of the transcript of plaintiff's plea allocution and guilty plea for the Court's consideration. (Mawn Ex. A.) Although a Court generally cannot consider material outside of the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, there are exceptions to this general rule. Specifically, the Court is entitled to consider: "(1) facts alleged in the complaint and documents attached to it or incorporated in it by reference, (2) documents 'integral' to the complaint and relied upon in it, even if not attached or incorporated by reference, (3) documents or information contained in defendant's motion papers if plaintiff has knowledge or possession of the material and relied on it in framing the complaint, (4) public disclosure documents required by law to be, and that have been, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and (5) facts of which judicial notice may properly be taken under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence." In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 273 F. Supp. 2d 351, 356-57 (S....