Schmelzinger v. City of Buffalo

1

JUDY J. SCHMELZINGER, as Executrix of the Estate of Robert J. Gloss, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-186

United States District Court, W.D. New York

March 8, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 28)

CHRISTINA REISS, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff Judy J. Schmelzinger (“Plaintiff'), as Executrix of the Estate of Robert J. Closs (the “Decedent”) brings this action against Defendants the City of Buffalo the Buffalo Police Department; and Buffalo Police Officer Clayton P. Reed, Buffalo Police Officer Michael Healy Buffalo Police Officer Caitlin Hidinger, Buffalo Police Officer Michael Ross, Buffalo Police Officer Ellen Taylor, Buffalo Police Officer Judith Bigelow, Buffalo Police Lieutenant Michael Long, Buffalo Police Lieutenant Patrick Morrow, and Buffalo Police Captain Robert Lee (the “Police Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: use of excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Police Defendants in their individual capacities (Count 1); negligence in violation of New York law against the Police Defendants in their individual capacities (Count 2); assault in violation of New York law against the Police Defendants in their individual capacities (Count 3); and use of “excessive force in [violation] ¶ 42 U.S.C. § 1982” against the City of Buffalo and the Buffalo Police Department (Count 4). (Doc. 1-1 at 7) (emphasis and capitalization omitted). Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 in actual damages, $3,000,000 in punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

Pending before the court is Defendants' August 31, 2023 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and the deadline to do so has expired.

Plaintiff is represented by Joshua I. Ramos, Esq. Defendants are represented by David M. Lee, Esq.

I. The Allegations of the Complaint.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the nine Police Defendants forcibly removed the Decedent, a seventy-eight-year-old who was “well known to the Buffalo Police Department and its employees/agents as a citizen of the City of Buffalo with mental health problems[,]” from a vehicle and “merciless[ly] beat” him. (Doc. 1-1 at 2-3, ¶¶ 10, 16) (capitalization omitted). The Decedent allegedly died approximately three weeks later from blunt force trauma caused by the incident. Plaintiff further claims that although “[t]here were no allegations of weapons being involved[,]” the Police Defendants “intentionally hit and struck” the Decedent while they “attempted to subdue” him, although “they did not intend to cause [his] death.” Id. at 5, ¶ 27; id. at 7, ¶¶36, 38.

II. The Undisputed Facts.

Shortly before 6:30 p.m. on March 6, 2019, the Decedent, without a valid driver's license, stole a Buffalo Police vehicle. Officers Reed and Healy pursued the Decedent in their police cruiser. The Decedent ran a red light while driving at a fast speed and collided with another vehicle that had the right-of-way. He crashed into a parked car in a parking lot and reversed into the police cruiser pursuing him before coming to a stop. The driver's side airbag deployed during the incident.

Officers Reed and Healy exited their patrol vehicle, approached the driver's side of the stolen police vehicle, and issued verbal commands to the Decedent to exit the vehicle. The Decedent refused to comply, struggled with the officers as they attempted to remove him from the vehicle, and refused to take his hands off the steering wheel and the gear shifter. Officers Reed and Healy then forcibly removed the Decedent from the vehicle. Because the Decedent continued to struggle, Officers Reed and Healy forcibly handcuffed him. No other Buffalo Police Department officers were involved in the use of force against the Decedent.

After the Decedent was subdued, he was taken to the Erie County Medical Center, On March 30, 2019, he died at Buffalo General Medical Center from complications of blunt force injuries to his torso. The Erie Country Medical Examiner's Office's Fatality Certification lists the manner of the Decedent's death as “accident” and describes the source of his injuries as a “[m]otor vehicle collision[.]” (Doc. 28-3 at 2) (capitalization omitted).

Plaintiff does not have an expert medical opinion that the Decedent's injuries or death were caused by the Police Defendants' use of force. In a state court proceeding, Plaintiff sought leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the City of Buffalo. On December 3, 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs motion and observed:

The Petition does not set forth when [Plaintiff] was appointed administratrix, so the court is unable to analyze the time frame from appointment to filing of the instant Petition. However, a letter dated January 28, 2020 advised [the City of Buffalo and the Buffalo Police Department] that it would be filing a motion for late notice. However, the instant Petition was not filed until October 02, 2020.

The record indicates that [D]ecedent struck several vehicles and other property before the alleged physical interaction occurred with [the Police Defendants], The court finds that [the City of Buffalo and the Buffalo Police Department] would be prejudiced by late filing since it may not have been able to investigate properly and adequately for a determination as to whether the alleged injuries were the result of the multiple motor vehicle accidents that occurred when he was operating the stolen vehicle or the police interaction thereafter.

(Doc. 28-4 at 2.) On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff commenced the current action.

III. Conclusions of Law and Analysis.

A. Applicable Standards of Review.

In their motion, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment under Rule 56. To survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

The sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is evaluated using a “two-pronged approach!.]” Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). First, the court discounts legal conclusions and “(t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements!.]” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court is also “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation!.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, the court considers whether the factual allegations, taken as true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. This second step is fact-bound and context-specific, requiring the court “to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The court does not “weigh the evidence” or “evaluate the likelihood” that a plaintiff will prevail. Christiansen v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., 852 F.3d 195, 201 (2d Cir. 2017).

The court must grant summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute 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.'” Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 39 (2d Cir, 2015) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “A dispute of fact is ‘genuine' if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Id. at 39-40 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court “construes] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” and “resolve[s] all ambiguities and draw[s] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc,, 944 F.3d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no genuine dispute where “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party[.]” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted).

The moving party always “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, MI U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Once the moving party demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the nonmoving party must come forth with evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find in its favor.” Spinelli v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 160, 166 (2d Cir. 2009) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, a nonmoving party can defeat a summary judgment motion only by coming forward with evidence that would be sufficient, if all reasonable inferences were drawn in its favor, to...