Okongwu v. Cnty. of Erie

EMEKA DOMINIC OKONGWU, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ERIE, Defendant.

14-CV-832S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 23, 2021

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, Plaintiff Emeka Okongwu seeks damages from Erie County for violating his constitutional rights when Erie County sheriff's deputies coerced his daughters to testify falsely against him in a sexual assault prosecution that resulted in his extended incarceration. Before this Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 66), which this Court will grant, for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. This Court takes the facts in the light most favorable to Okongwu, the non-moving party. See Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2016) (at summary judgment, a court "views the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to ... the non-moving party").

On December 21, 1992, a grand jury indicted Okongwu for rape in the first degree, incest, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and harassment. (Docket No. 66-11 at p. 2; Certificate of Discharge, Docket No. 66-12 at p. 2.) Okongwu's daughters both testified at his trial that he had abused them. (Affidavit of Chendo Okongwu, Docket No. 66-10 at p. 11.)

Okongwu's daughters assert in sworn affidavits that "law enforcement officials" and prosecutors told them to testify falsely against their father and threatened them with deportation to Africa if they did not memorize false facts provided to them about their father's sexual abuse. (Affidavit of Nnedi Okongwu, Docket No. 66-10 at pp. 5-7; Affidavit of Chendo Okongwu, Docket No. 66-10 at pp. 11-13.) Both daughters assert that unnamed "law enforcement authorities" paid them for their false testimony. (Id. at pp. 6, 12.)

Okongwu was sentenced to 35 to 107 years imprisonment as a result of this prosecution. (Docket No. 66-5 at p. 8.) He served approximately 16 years of his sentence. (Id.) On December 15, 2011, the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department, vacated Okongwu's judgment of conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Erie County Statement of Material Facts, Docket No. 66-2 at p. 2; Okongwu Statement of Undisputed Facts, Docket No. 69-1 at p. 2.) The Fourth Department based its holding on Okongwu's counsel's failure to proffer favorable evidence or call an expert and on the inconsistent testimony of his daughters. (People v. Okongwu, 71 A.D.3d 1393, at Docket No. 66-11.) The Fourth Department found "reasonable evidence that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." (Docket No. 66-11 at p. 4.)

Okongwu brought this action on October 8, 2014, asserting multiple constitutional claims against multiple defendants. (Docket No. 1.) Because Okongwu was proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court screened his Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket No. 12.) This Court dismissed Okongwu's claims against the Erie CountyDistrict Attorney's Office, the Erie County Sheriff's Office, the Erie County Department of Social Services, and the City of Buffalo Police Department. (Docket No. 12.) In a further screening order, this Court dismissed all but one of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 15.) This Court read Okongwu's complaint "generously" as asserting that his alleged malicious prosecution "was a product of the failure of Erie County to properly train and monitor its employees." (Id. at p. 16.) Implicit in this statement was this Court's finding that the County, not the Sheriff's Office, could be a proper defendant for this cause of action.

Okongwu's remaining claim is for malicious prosecution against Erie County. Okongwu asserts that "undersheriffs of the Sheriff's Department arrested him, procured his two daughters and coerced, coached and intim[id]ated them while paying them when the process of fabrication of evidence against Plaintiff went well." (Docket No. 69-1 at p. 4.) Erie County does not assert that this did not happen, but rather, argues that it does not employ Erie County sheriff's deputies and has no policy related to the training or conduct of sheriff's deputies.

III. DISCUSSION

Okongwu claims that Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution when it failed to train sheriff's deputies not to coerce his daughters to testify falsely against him. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the County on this basis.

Defendants move for summary judgment on Okongwu's claim.

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if "the movant shows that there is no genuinedispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence must be "viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Addickes v. S.H. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S. Ct.1598, 1609, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970). "Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of evidence is summary judgment proper." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir. 1991). Indeed, "[i]f, as to the issue on which summary judgment is sought, there is any evidence in the record from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party, summary judgment is improper." Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

But a "mere scintilla of evidence" in favor of the nonmoving party will not defeat summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. A nonmoving party must do more than cast a "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts; it must "offer some hard evidence showing that its version of the events is not wholly fanciful." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009) ("When a motion for summary judgment is properly supported by documents or other evidentiary materials, the party opposing summary judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of his pleading...."); D'Amico v. City of N.Y., 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, there must be evidencefrom which the jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

In the end, the function of the court is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment." Rule v. Brine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir. 1996).

B. Federal Constitutional Claim

Okongwu brings his claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil liability is imposed under § 1983 only upon persons who, acting under color of state law, deprive an individual of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On its own, § 1983 does not provide a source of substantive rights, but rather, a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere in federal statutes and the Constitution. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94,109 S. Ct. 1865, 1870, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 n.3, 99 S. Ct. 2689, 2695, 61 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1979)). Accordingly, as a threshold matter in reviewing claims brought pursuant to § 1983, it is necessary to precisely identify the constitutional violations alleged. See Baker, 443 U.S. at 140. Here, Okongwu's malicious prosecution claim is grounded in the Fourth Amendment.

C. Municipal Liability

To prevail on a § 1983 claim against a municipal entity, a plaintiff must show: "(1) actions taken under color of law; (2) deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; (3) causation; (4) damages; and (5) that an official policy of the municipality caused theconstitutional injury." Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 2008). Thus, "a municipality can be held liable under Section 1983 if the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights under federal law is caused by a governmental custom, policy, or usage of the municipality." Jones v. Town of E. Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012). "The Supreme Court has made clear that 'a municipality cannot be made liable' under § 1983 for acts of its employees 'by application of the doctrine of respondeat superior.'" Roe, 542 F.3d at 36 (citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 478, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1986)).

"Official municipal policy includes the decisions of a government's lawmakers, the acts of its policymaking officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law." Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60-61, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359, 179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (2011) (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978)). While the actions of subordinate employees do not, in and of themselves, constitute a "custom" or "practice," the single act of a municipal policymaker, i.e., a person with the authority to set municipal policy, can constitute official policy, and thus, can give rise to municipal liability. See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480. Additionally, a municipal policymaker's failure to train can trigger municipal liability where such a failure "'amounts to...