Smith v. Garcia

647 F.Supp.3d 90

Yandielle SMITH & Tiffany McKelvy, Plaintiffs, v. E. GARCIA, J. Hines & John/Jane Doe # 1-25, Defendants.

21-CV-578 (NGG) (RJR)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

Signed December 22, 2022

Gregory Paul Mouton, Jr., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Matthew J. Modafferi, U.S. Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

NICHOIAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs Yandielle Smith and Tiffany McKelvy filed a complaint against Correctional Officers Eleazar Garcia, Robert Hines, and John/Jane Does #1-25 in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs assert that the officers used excessive force in violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, and they seek relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The Defendants move to dismiss the claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

I. FACTS

A. Factual History¹

In late January 2019, a severe cold front, commonly referred to as the "polar vortex," moved through New York City. (Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶ 28.) On January 27, 2019, in the wake of this storm, an electrical panel at the Metropolitan Detention Center (the "MDC") exploded and knocked out the power in the MDC's West Building. (Id. ¶ 29.) Temperatures within cells in the West Building plunged, and inmates were put on lockdown for up to 23 hours a day. (Id. ¶ 30.) Soon after, inmates began reporting freezing conditions coupled with the denial of basic services like medical care. (Id.)

Upon reports of the conditions in the West Building, protests began to form outside of the MDC. (Id. ¶ 37.) On February 3, 2019, the Plaintiffs, two non-incarcerated individuals motivated by the social and racial justice implications of conditions reported at the MDC, participated in one such protest. (Id. ¶ 38.) This protest, like those that had preceded it, began outside the MDC. Eventually, however, protestors and media personnel entered the lobby of the facility seeking answers. (Id. ¶ 40.)

Plaintiffs allege that soon thereafter, corrections officers, including Defendants, also entered the lobby and began attacking the protestors. (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiffs allege that the protests remained completely peaceful and that no protestors attempted to enter any secure part of the building. (Id.) Despite this, Plaintiffs allege that the guards struck, pushed, shoved, and pepper-sprayed the Plaintiffs without warning. (Id. ¶ 41-42.)

Plaintiff Smith alleges that Defendants struck and pepper-sprayed her, causing injury to her right arm and shoulder as well as severe pain, distress, and difficulty breathing. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff McKelvy similarly alleges that she was thrown to the ground and pepper-sprayed, suffering injuries similar to Smith's, as well as multiple fractures to her right hand. (Id. ¶ 44.) Plaintiffs further allege that, following this action. Defendants neither offered medical assistance nor requested any help on Plaintiffs' behalf. (Id. ¶ 49.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed their Bivens Complaint with this court on February 3, 2021. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), (Dkt. 10) ("Mot."), was served on Plaintiffs on February 11, 2022 and filed alongside Plaintiff's Opposition, (Dkt. 11) ("Opp."), and Defendant's Reply, (Dkt. 12) ("Reply"), on April 4, 2022. Eight days earlier, on February 3, 2022, however, Plaintiffs had filed in this district a related complaint, bringing claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the "FTCA") against Defendants arising out of the same incident". See Smith v. United States, No. 22-CV-00640 (KAM) (SJB).

When the instant Motion to Dismiss was served on Plaintiffs, the two complaints were before different judges. On February 14, 2022, the two complaints were consolidated before Judge Garaufis. (See Feb. 14, 2022 Text Order.) Defendants have not, at this time, sought leave to amend their Motion to Dismiss to seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' FTCA claims. Instead, Defendants answered Plaintiffs' FTCA Complaint on April 11, 2022. (FTCA Answer (Dkt. 13).) Accordingly, this court now addresses Defendant's Motion to Dismiss solely as to the Bivens claims brought by Plaintiffs in their February 3, 2021 complaint.

The court notes that, in the alternative, Defendants' motion seeks Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claims. (See Mot. at 1-4.) Defendants also filed a Rule 56.1 statement contemporaneously. (See 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 10-4).) This portion of the filing was premature. Thus, the court will not review the Summary Judgment filings and will address the Motion to Dismiss solely on the basis of the Complaint.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When the court reviews a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true all allegations of facts made by the plaintiffs and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. See ATSI Comms., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007). A court will dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim if it does not "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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).²

III. DISCUSSION

A. Bivens Claims as Relief

1. Legal Framework

In Bivens, the Supreme Court established a cause of action for constitutional violations by federal officials. 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999. In that case, Federal Bureau of Narcotics ("FBN") officers had allegedly violated an individual's Fourth Amendment rights by entering his home without a warrant, aggressively searching the home and his person, and eventually arresting him. Id. at 391, 395-97, 91 S.Ct. 1999. In the years immediately following Bivens, the Supreme Court expanded the remedy's application to two other contexts: (1) violation of a female government employee's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights through discriminatory firing, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), and (2) violation of an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights by ignoring his urgent request for medical help, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980).

However, the Supreme Court has not extended the Bivens remedy since Carlson, rejecting its application on numerous occasions and labeling any further expansion of the remedy "disfavored judicial activity." Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017). As a result, courts assessing Bivens claims must first determine whether a case presents a "new context or involves a new category of defendants." Hernández v. Mesa, — U.S. —, 140 S. Ct. 735, 743, 206 L.Ed.2d 29 (2020). If it does, the court must then determine whether there are alternative available remedies or "special factors that counsel hesitation about granting the extension;" only where there are no such special factors may a court extend the Bivens remedy. Id. The fundamental goal of this inquiry is to determine "whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy" than the courts are. Egbert v. Boule, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803, 213 L.Ed.2d 54 (2022). And, in the event that there is "a rational reason to think that the answer is 'Congress'—as it will be in most every case—no Bivens action may lie." Id.

a. New Context

The Supreme Court has defined a case as arising in a new context if its facts or legal claims are "different in a meaningful way" from the facts or legal claims of Bivens, Davis, or Carlson. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1859. The Court has not "endeavor[ed] to create an exhaustive list of differences" that could make a context "new," but it has provided some specific examples, such as:

[T]he rank of the officers involved; the constitutional right at issue; the generality or specificity of the official action; the extent of judicial guidance as to how an officer should respond to the problem or emergency to be confronted; the statutory or other legal mandate under which the officer was operating; the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; or the presence of potential special factors that previous Bivens cases did not consider.

Id. at 1859-60.

The Court has made clear that the proper understanding of a " 'new context' is broad," Hernández, 140 S. Ct. at 743, and "even a modest extension is still an extension." Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1864. Indeed, the Abbasi inquiry has precluded the implication of a Bivens remedy in in all three cases proposing use of the remedy to since come before the Supreme Court, as the Court held that each would have constituted a new context.

First, in Abbasi, the plaintiffs alleged a warden had allowed guards to abuse detainees. Id. at 1864-65. The Court found meaningful differences from the claims in Carlson, which were brought against prison guards for deliberate indifference toward an inmate's serious medical needs. Id. Abbasi determined that the case's reliance on the Fifth Amendment, rather than the Eighth,³ and minor distinctions between the federal officials held liable in Carlson and the supervisory officials in Abbasi, together made clear that a Bivens remedy in Abbasi would "extend Carlson to a new context." Id. The Court also noted that the warden in Abbasi lacked the clear judicial guidance on what constituted violative behavior that was available to the prison guards in Carlson, id. at 1864, and that possible alternative remedies existed for the Abbasi plaintiffs. Id. at 1865. Although the Court admitted that each of these differences was small "in practical...