Montes v. Albany Cnty.

1

CARLOS J. MONTES, JR., Plaintiff, v. ALBANY COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:24-CV-985 (AMN/DJS)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

October 24, 2024

APPEARANCES: Carlos Montes Jr. Plaintiff, pro se

OF COUNSEL:

ORDER

Hon Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff pro se Carlos Montes Jr. commenced this action and asserted claims of coercion, false imprisonment, improper documentation, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and kidnapping against Albany County, the Albany County Sheriff, the Albany County Family Court Officers, Captain Guillermo Oliver, Sgt. Vincent Ballesher, Officer Shevax Thomas, Officer Daniel Weaver, and Officer Thomas Muller. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart, who, on September 19, 2024, granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP. Dkt. No. 5.

Also on September 19, 2024, after conducting an initial review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge Stewart issued an Order and Report-Recommendation (i) recommending that Plaintiff's claims under the ADA be dismissed with leave to amend; and (ii) recommending that Plaintiff's claims under the New York Criminal Procedure, Penal, and Corrections Law be dismissed with prejudice, and (iii) recommending that Plaintiff's state and federal claims for false arrest be permitted to proceed. Dkt. No. 6 (“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Stewart advised that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 6 at 10.^[1]

On October 2, 2024, prior to this Court ruling on the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 7.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. The Court also conducts an initial review of the Amended Complaint and finds that Plaintiff's ADA, deliberate indifference, procedural due process, and NYSHRL claims may proceed, and directs Defendants to respond to them in accordance with this decision.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F.Supp.3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a magistrate judge's report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.Supp.3d at 229 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). Similarly, if an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge, this Court reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.Supp.3d at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “When performing such a ‘clear error' review, ‘the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Dezarea W. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-CV-01138 (MAD/TWD), 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-CV-0367 (GTS/WBC), 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).

“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.Supp.2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal ....” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No. 22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Report-Recommendation

Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.

Magistrate Judge Stewart construed the Complaint, in part, to assert various claims under state criminal statutes and the N.Y. Correction Law § 137. Dkt. No. 6 at 4. Because the Complaint “identifies no statutory basis for a private right of action under the alleged criminal statutes,” the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart's recommendation to dismiss with prejudice such claims. Id. at 4 (citing Jones v. Connecticut Superior Ct., 722 Fed.Appx. 109, 110 (2d Cir. 2018)) (other citations omitted). Similarly, Plaintiff fails to show that a private right of action exists as to N.Y. Correction Law § 137. See Correa v. Lynch, 20-CV-02875 (PMH), 2021 WL 2036697, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) (“there is no right of action under [N.Y. Correction Law § 137]”). Therefore, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart that the claim pursuant to N.Y. Correction Law § 137 should also be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. 6 at 7-8.

Magistrate Judge Stewart also construed the Complaint as asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA based on Plaintiff's treatment upon his arrest. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to pretrial detainees, and thus, such a claim must be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. 6 at 7 (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2000)). The Court also agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart's assessment under the ADA and his conclusion that Plaintiff's claim is precluded as a result of his failure to allege interference with major life activities caused by either his epilepsy or the pre-existing injury to his arms. Dkt. No. 7 at 6-7 (citing O'Hara v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., S. Westchester, No. 18-CV-8502 (KMK), 2020 WL 1244474, *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020)) (other citations omitted). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart's decision that Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to replead his claim under the ADA. Dkt. No. 6 at 9.

Magistrate Judge Stewart also construed the Complaint to assert claims under the Fourth Amendment and state law for false imprisonment. The Court agrees such claims should be permitted to move forward and finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Stewart's analysis. Id. at 8. In the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was detained without legal basis and prior to actual arrest, and that officers scrambled to add charges which could justify his arrest. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 16, 41. Such allegations are sufficient to advance at this stage.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Stewart concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege “an unconstitutional policy that would support a claim of municipal liability.” Dkt. No. 6 at 8 (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). The Court agrees and therefore finds no clear error in the recommendation to dismiss the County of Albany as a Defendant.

Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error, and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

B. Sufficiency of the Amended Complaint

Because Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 7, in lieu of objecting to the Report-Recommendation, the Court moves on to assess the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Magistrate Judge Stewart set forth the standard for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) in the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 6 at 2-3, and the Court utilizes that same standard now.

i. Summary of the Complaint

In summary, the Amended Complaint alleges many of the same facts as the original Complaint. Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to the ADA, the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) against Albany County, the Albany County Sheriff's Office, the Albany Family Court, and the same individual Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 7 at 1, 3-4. Generally, Plaintiff asserts that he has epilepsy and preexisting injuries, and that during the course of his interactions with Defendants on July 11, 2024, Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his condition, exacerbated his medical condition, and demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Id. at 2.

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff alleges that his petition for 50/50 custody of his daughter was denied in Family Court, and afterwards, he told the male officers present that he would only leave upon being removed physically. Id. at 4. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants Oliver, Ballesher, and Thomas then restrained Plaintiff and escorted him to a secure area in the court, where he was handcuffed behind his back despite Plaintiff disclosing to the officers that he had epilepsy and had recently suffered injuries to his neck, shoulders, left knee, and left ankle. Id. at 5-7. Defendants Oliver, Ballesher, and Thomas allegedly refused to adjust the handcuffs after Plaintiff made his medical condition known. Id. at 6-7.

Later Plai...