O'Neal v. City of N.Y.

196 F.Supp.3d 421

Johnnie O'NEAL, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Housing Authority, and Jose Morales, Individually, Defendants.

14-cv-7649 (JGK)

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

Signed July 22, 2016

Brett Harris Klein, Brett H. Klein, Esq. PLLC, New York, NY, Jason Louis Leventhal, Edward James Ferrity, Leventhal Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III, Angharad Wilson, Matthew Stein, The New York City Law Department, New York, NY, Patrick Jon Lawless, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Florham Park, NJ, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

Johnnie O'Neal brings this action against the City of New York (the "City"), the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA"), and Jose Morales, alleging violations of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. O'Neal was arrested and convicted in 1985 of rape in the first degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 130.35 and robbery in the first degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 160.15. He was imprisoned for more than thirteen years. In 2008, the Legal Aid Society investigated the validity of O'Neal's conviction, and in 2010, the New York City District Attorney ("NYCDA") conducted an investigation that called into question O'Neal's conviction. In 2013, a state court issued an order vacating O'Neal's rape and robbery convictions pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(1)(g).

On September 19, 2014, O'Neal filed this lawsuit, and filed an Amended Complaint on September 14, 2015. O'Neal asserted violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against: (1) Jose Morales, the New York City detective who investigated the alleged rape and robbery, for malicious prosecution, Amended Compl. ¶¶ 77-86 (First Cause of Action); (2) Morales for violating O'Neal's right to a fair trial by allegedly providing false information to the prosecutor, Amended Compl. ¶¶ 87-91 (Second Cause of Action); (3) against the City of New York for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) for the actions of the NYCDA arising from alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) by the state prosecutor, Amended Compl. ¶¶ 92-119 (Third Cause of Action); and (4) against the NYCHA for municipal liability for the actions of the New York City Housing Authority Police Department ("NYCHAPD"), Amended Compl. ¶¶ 120-31 (Fourth Cause of Action). On November 9, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. O'Neal voluntarily withdrew the malicious prosecution claim against Morales (First Cause of Action) and the municipal liability claim against the NYCHA (Fourth Cause of Action). Pl.'s Opp. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the defendants' motions are granted.

I.

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. See McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.2007). The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir.1985). The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.

When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Taylor v. Vt. Dep't of Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 776 (2d Cir.2002).

II.

The following facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are accepted as true for the purposes of the defendants' motions to dismiss.

On January 29, 1985, O'Neal was convicted of rape in the first degree and robbery in the first degree. Amended Compl. ¶ 13. The crime for which O'Neal was arrested and convicted occurred on March 16, 1984. Id.¶ 21. At approximately 11:00 p.m., on March 16, 1984, a woman referred to as M.R. was raped and robbed on the roof of her apartment building at 865 Columbus Avenue. Id.¶ 22. When M.R. attempted to leave the elevator in her apartment building, a man threatened her with a knife and stole her money and jewelry. He proceeded to force M.R. to the roof where he ordered M.R. to the floor, covered her face, removed her clothing, and raped her. Id. M.R. described her assailant as a thin, African American man in his 20s. Id. She did not indicate that her assailant lived in her building or that he had a mustache or missing front tooth. Id. In the months preceding the March 1984 rape, three other rapes occurred, two on the rooftop of 865 Columbus Avenue and one across the street at 830 Columbus Avenue. Id.¶ 17. The three prior rapes occurred after midnight and shared similar characteristics—namely, the victim was intercepted in the elevator and threatened with either a gun or a knife, robbed of valuables, forced to the roof, and raped. Id.¶¶ 18-20. The victims identified their respective attackers as a thin, African American male. The ages ranged from 28-30 to 28-29 to early 20s. Id.

Jose Morales, a detective in the New York Police Department, was assigned to investigate the rape of M.R. He allegedly noted that the rapist had the "same M.O. and dialogue" as and was described similarly to the assailants in the three other rapes. Id.¶¶ 23-24. On March 27, 1984, Morales interviewed M.R.'s mother, B.M., who told Morales that six days earlier, B.M. and M.R. had identified O'Neal as the rapist. Id.¶ 27. B.M. told Morales that on March 21, 1984, M.R. told B.M. that she saw her rapist from the window of her apartment on the 10th floor. Id.¶ 28. B.M. told Morales that B.M. followed the person M.R. identified for six hours and that he returned to 865 Columbus Avenue. Id. B.M. told Morales that B.M. called M.R. from a pay phone and told her to come downstairs to identify the person B.M. had been following. B.M. told Morales that M.R. confirmed that the person was her assailant and that B.M. followed the person to the elevator and saw him go into an apartment on the 5th floor. Id.

M.R. also told Morales that she saw a person she believed to be her assailant from her 10th floor window on March 20, 1984, and again on March 21, 1984, when she told her mother. Id.¶ 29. The Amended Complaint alleges that Morales had reasons to doubt the truthfulness and reliability of the identification by B.M. and M.R. because, among other things, B.M. and M.R. never mentioned that the assailant lived in their building and that he had a missing tooth and mustache like O'Neal. Id.¶ 30.

M.R. and B.M. identified O'Neal as the assailant on March 31, 1984, in a photo array. Id.¶ 31. O'Neal was arrested the next day, on April 1, 1984. Id.¶ 35. On April 2, 1984, Morales swore to a criminal court complaint filed in New York County Criminal Court. The complaint initiated the prosecution against O'Neal. Id.¶ 37. At O'Neal's arraignment, the NYCDA informed the court that O'Neal was a suspect in the other three rapes. Id.¶ 37. O'Neal was unable to post bail. Id. O'Neal was indicted by a grand jury. Id.¶ 38.

Before July 2, 1984, an unidentified police officer placed O'Neal's photograph in a photo array and displayed it to C.H., the victim of one of the other three rapes. C.H. stated that she did not see her assailant in the array, and that she knew O'Neal and O'Neal was not the person who had raped her. Id.¶¶ 40-41. The police officer allegedly verbally informed the assistant district attorney ("ADA") assigned to prosecute O'Neal that C.H. had exculpated O'Neal. Id.¶ 42. O'Neal was also placed in a lineup for another one of the rapes, and the victim did not identify him as the assailant. Id.¶ 43. On July 2, 1984, the NYCDA notified O'Neal and the state court that O'Neal had not been identified by the other rape victims. Id.¶ 44. O'Neal's bail was reduced. O'Neal posted bail and was released. Id.¶ 45.

Approximately two weeks before the trial against O'Neal which commenced on January 18, 1985, the ADA assigned to O'Neal's case requested that Morales visit M.R.'s 10th floor apartment to determine if facial features of individuals on the street could be discerned from the window. Id.¶ 48. Morales allegedly informed the ADA before the trial that he verified that facial features were discernable from the 10th floor window. Id.¶ 49. During O'Neal's trial, Morales testified that he could see people's faces on the street from M.R.'s window on the 10th floor. Id.¶ 51. M.R. and B.M. also testified at trial. Id. According to the Amended Complaint, Morales "created false evidence ... and forwarded that false evidence to the NYCDA" and "used false evidence against [O'Neal] in legal proceedings." Id.¶¶ 88-89. The only "fake evidence" that O'Neal has identified in Morales's testimony and statement to the ADA was that he could see people's faces from M.R.'s 10th floor window.

On January 29, 1985, O'Neal was convicted of first degree rape and first degree robbery. Id.¶ 53. O'Neal was sentenced to a prison term of ten to twenty years, and served approximately thirteen...