Meadows v. Buffalo Police Dep't

1

CAROLETTE MEADOWS, Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-CV-449-LJV-HKS

United States District Court, W.D. New York

March 14, 2024

DECISION & ORDER

LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On March 29, 2021, the pro se plaintiff, Carolette Meadows, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 and 1985-1986 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Docket Item 1. Meadows, who has amended her complaint twice to include additional allegations and causes of action, says that her neighbor, Rachel Eckert repeatedly violated her rights under federal law over the course of a long-running feud between them. See Docket Item 44 (amended complaint); Docket Item 134 (second amended complaint). Meadows also says that local law enforcement and county prosecutors inadequately responded to her complaints while giving undue weight to Eckert's grievances. Docket Item 134 at 2-4.^[1]

After Meadows filed the first amended complaint, several of the defendants-Erie County, Erie County District Attorney John Flynn, Erie County Assistant District Attorneys John Schoemick and Milton Gordon, and Erie County Department of Health employee Ankur Singh-moved to dismiss the complaint Docket Items 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62. In addition, Eckert moved for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 78.^[2] On January 30, 2023, this Court ruled on those motions, dismissing some claims and stating that the remaining claims against Eckert, Erie County, Flynn, Schoemick, Gordon, and Singh would be dismissed unless Meadows filed a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in its decision and order. Docket Item 127 at 2-3.

On March 31, 2023, Meadows asked this Court to reconsider its dismissal of some of her claims against Flynn, Schoemick, and Gordon (“the Erie County prosecutors”).^[3] Docket Item 133 at 2; see also Docket Item 127 at 12-17. On the same day, she filed a second amended complaint against a number of defendants, including Eckert, Erie County, and the Erie County prosecutors.^[4] Docket Item 134. That complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 and 1985-86, the ADA, the Civil Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”).^[5] Docket Item 134 at 3.

Erie County and the Erie County prosecutors (“the Erie County defendants”) responded to Meadows's motion for reconsideration, Docket Items 136 and 137; they also moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and to strike that complaint, or, in the alternative, to strike certain allegations made in it, see Docket Items 141-43. Around the same time, Eckert also moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Docket Item 139.

Meadows responded to both motions to dismiss in a single filing, Docket Item 145, and both the Erie County defendants and Eckert replied, Docket Item 146 (Erie County defendants' reply); Docket Item 147 (Eckert's reply).^[6] Meadows then moved for leave to file supplemental pleading against Flynn, Erie County, the Erie County District Attorney's Office, and the New York State Attorney General, Docket Item 151, and the Erie County defendants opposed this request, Docket Item 152. Without waiting for the Court to rule on her motion,^[7] Meadows then filed her supplemental pleading, Docket Item 155; the Erie County defendants moved to strike that pleading, Docket Items 15658; and the parties briefed the motion to strike,^[8] Docket Items 161 (Meadows's response); Docket Items 162-163 (Erie County defendants' reply).

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Meadows's motion for reconsideration, Docket Item 133; grants the motions to dismiss filed by Eckert and the Erie County defendants, Docket Items 139 and 141; denies Meadows's motion for leave to file supplemental pleading, Docket Item 151; and denies as moot the Erie County defendants' motions to strike Meadows's amended complaint, Docket Item 141, and her supplemental pleading, Docket Item 156.^[9]

BACKGROUND^[10]

Fences are said to make good neighbors. See Robert Frost, “Mending Wall,” in North of Boston (1914). If this action is any indication, pipes make very bad ones.

In the spring of 2020, Eckert “install[ed] piping on her home that blocked Meadows,” her next-door neighbor, “from removing her car from the driveway.” Docket Item 134 at 8. The ensuing feud has now spawned several law enforcement investigations, multiple state court cases, and two lawsuits in this Court.^[11] At issue in this case are several incidents in which Meadows and Eckert had a dispute or altercation-to which police and county prosecutors responded, Meadows says, by giving short shrift to Meadows's claims and undue weight to Eckert's.^[12] See Docket Items 44 and 134; see also Docket Item 127 at 3-10 (summarizing facts alleged in amended complaint). What follows is the story as Meadows tells it. See supra at 5 n.10.

I. THE INITIAL PIPE DISPUTE

Although the pipe that Eckert installed prevented Meadows from using Meadows's own driveway, Eckert refused to move it. Docket Item 134 at 8-9. So Meadows “cut the pipe and le[ft],” and Eckert called 911, falsely reporting that Meadows was “threatening” her. Id. at 9. BPD officers responded to the scene and ultimately “filed a warrant for Meadows [which stated] that the pipe was cut without cause.” Id.

Around that same time, Meadows “washed and hung a tent out to dry which was destroyed when she woke up the next morning.” Id. at 10. Meadows asked Eckert whether “she knew anything about the tent”; in response, Eckert “threatened to hit Meadows in the head with a pipe.” Id. Meadows called the police, but the responding officer “declined to file a report.” Id. After Eckert repeated similar threats on Facebook that night, Meadows again called the police. Id. That time, an officer “wrote a complaint for harassment against Eckert for the threats,” although another officer later changed that complaint to “a dispute form.” Id.

Eckert then “remove[d] Meadows'[s] gate,” which a Buffalo police officer “made her put back.” Id. Eckert also claimed that much of Meadows's property belonged to her, “threaten[ed] Meadows numerous times,” and “push[ed] [Meadows].” Id. Although Meadows tried to show a video of the incident to a Buffalo police officer, he “declar[ed] that he wasn't looking at any videos.” Id. at 11. No charges were filed against Eckert based on this incident. Id.

Eckert then took to social media, where she “ma[de] several racially charged statements . . . claiming the dispute was because Eckert ‘was white' and . . . Meadows ‘doesn't like white women.'” Id. Eckert “declar[ed] . . . ‘war'” on Meadows, saying that “she ‘would not stop,' and would[] ‘destroy [Meadows's] whole life.'” Id. Eckert made other “social media posts” that “attack[ed] Meadows['s] disability status and question[ed] her medical history.” Id. at 13. Other people “respond[ed] to Eckert's racially charged comments by saying that Meadows should be spit on, shot, beat with a bat, and [have] other violence inflicted upon her.” Id. at 11.

Meanwhile, the dispute over the pipe remained unresolved. Buffalo city employees “asked Meadows to let Eckert reconnect the pipe so it would[] [not] cause [carbon monoxide]” emissions. Id. at 12. Eckert also “posted on social media that she took her kids to the [emergency room] and they tested positive for [carbon monoxide]” and that she therefore “wanted Meadows arre[sted] for attempted murder.” Id. But Eckert was to blame because she had not “repair[ed] the cut pipe that was supposed to be a [carbon monoxide] risk.” Id. So Meadows “called [Child Protective Services]” about Eckert,^[13] and Eckert then fixed the pipe. Id.

Although that should have ended the matter, sometime in April 2020, Meadows “noticed [that she had] difficulty breathing while in the driveway.” Id. at 15. She told a Buffalo city inspector about this, but the inspector responded that “the fumes were ‘only 5% [carbon monoxide].'” Id. After Meadows protested that this level of carbon monoxide was still too high, “Eckert was informed that she would need to move the pipe.” Id. But Eckert “push[ed ]back” and “the [C]ity [of Buffalo] gave in[].” Id.

II. THE RESULTING PHYSICAL ALTERCATIONS

The dispute between Eckert and Meadows subsequently devolved into physical violence. On May 23, 2020, Meadows was “crouching near the ground[]” on the “disputed boundary between her property and Eckert's property.” Id. at 17. Eckert then “walked up behind [Meadows], pushed the fence on top of her, and struck [Meadows] on the back of her head . . . and in the middle of [her] back with a cast iron skillet.” Id. Eckert did this even though she “kn[e]w[] that Meadows is disabled.” Id. As a result of the assault, Meadows was taken to the hospital where she was treated for her injuries, including “a concussion, collapsed lung, ear laceration[,] and contusions.” Id. Although BPD officers were called to the scene, they initially “declined to p[re]ss charges against Eckert” and stated that Eckert was only “protecting her property.” Id. at 18. After Meadows protested, an officer charged Eckert with “[f]elony [a]ssault” and Meadows with trespassing and harassment. Id.

On May 2, 2022, Eckert and Meadows got into another physical altercation after Eckert “provoke[d] [Meadows].” Id. at 41. Eckert's son then “exacerbated” the situation by “throwing a rock from [Eckert's] porch that [Meadows] then threw at Eckert's car.” Id. The situation devolved into a “struggle over the rock,” and Eckert's son “put[] [Meadows] in a chokehold” while Eckert took “several swings at [Meadows].” Id. at 41-42. Based on the BPD's “disparate treatment” of herself and Eckert, Meadows “feared the police” and “refuse[d] to speak with [them]” regarding the incident. Id. at 42.

At some...