Walker v. Carrozzo

664 F.Supp.3d 490

Robert WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Officer Trooper Tyler CARROZZO, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-CV-2975 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed March 28, 2023

Ryanne Guy Konan, Esq., Ryanne Konan Law Office, Wappingers Fall, NY, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Amanda Yoon, Esq., New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, Counsel for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

Robert Walker ("Plaintiff") brings this Action against Officer Troopers Tyler Carrozzo and Corey Rano (together, "Defendants"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive use of force. (See generally Am. Compl. ("AC") (Dkt. No. 16).) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff for all the claims brought in the Amended Complaint except for excessive use of force against Defendant Ranno and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants for false arrest. (See Dec. in Support of Mot. (Dkt. Nos. 41, 44).)

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from the Parties' statements pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, specifically:

• Defendants' 56.1 Statement in Support of their Motion ("Defs.' 56.1")

• Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement in Support of his Motion and Response to Defendants' 56.1 Statement ("Pl.'s 56.1")¹

• Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement ("Defs.' 56.1 Resp.")

Additionally, where appropriate, the Court cites directly to the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties. The facts as described below are in dispute to the extent indicated.

Defendants were working as New York State Troopers on November 19, 2018. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 1.) On November 19, 2018, at approximately 10:32 P.M., on the I-87 Thruway, Defendants stopped a vehicle with plate number JCV 1891. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendants observed the vehicle change lanes without a signal, move from one lane to another lane unsafely, and also observed that the vehicle was traveling approximately 15 miles below the posted speed limit. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff was the registered owner of the stopped vehicle bearing plate number JCV 1891. (Id. ¶ 4.) When Defendants approached Plaintiff's vehicle after the stop, Plaintiff was sitting in the front passenger seat, and his friend, Johnny Cooper ("Cooper"), was sitting in the driver's seat. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant Carrozzo approached the vehicle on the driver's side and asked Cooper for his license and registration, and Defendant Ranno approached the passenger side. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 23.) Cooper and Plaintiff gave conflicting statements as to the purpose of their travel.

(Carrozzo Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Ranno Decl. ¶¶ 15, 17; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff had been traveling back and forth between New Jersey and Poughkeepsie, and during that trip, he had procured heroin. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff was in possession of the heroin, which belonged to him, at the time Defendants stopped his vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)

The Parties dispute what occurred after Plaintiff's car was stopped. Plaintiff contends that he "was pulled [out] of the car, forcibly searched, pepper sprayed, [and] punched in the face by both Defendant[s]." (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 10.) Plaintiff testified that he explicitly stated to Defendants that they could not search him or the car. (Yoon Decl. Ex. A, at 85:8-86:8.) "[T]he officer proceeded to search [Plaintiff] against [his] will" and Plaintiff "backed up" and then "fell on the ground" backwards, after which he was beaten. (Id. at 86:20-87:20.) It is not disputed that Defendant Ranno delivered close fist strikes to Plaintiff's face. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 35.) It is also not disputed that at some point, Plaintiff lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 39.) Plaintiff alleges he never used force against either of the officers. (Id. ¶ 38.)

Defendants, on the other hand, contend Defendant Ranno asked Plaintiff if he could search his vehicle and his person, to which Plaintiff, without any instructions from Defendants, exited his vehicle and raised his hands above his head with his palms facing toward [Defendant Ranno] and spread his feet in a wide stance. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 18; Carrozzo Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.) Defendant Ranno understood Plaintiff's actions to indicate that he consented to a search of his body and his vehicle. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 19.) Defendants state that while Defendant Ranno patted Plaintiff down, he felt a rectangular object protruding from Plaintiff's inner left thigh. (Id. ¶ 20.) Defendant Ranno suspected that the rectangular object could be a weapon. (Id.) When Defendant Ranno asked Plaintiff what the rectangular object was, Plaintiff suddenly turned around from the vehicle and struck Defendant Ranno, causing him to drop his flashlight and trip over his feet. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 21; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff then proceed to flee on foot northbound, and Defendant Ranno ran after Plaintiff. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 22; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 20.) Defendant Ranno told Plaintiff numerous times to stop running, but Plaintiff continued to run. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 24.) Defendant Ranno saw Plaintiff reach inside of his pockets and pants; he was worried that Plaintiff was reaching for the rectangular object that he suspected was a weapon or controlled substance. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 25; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 21.) When Plaintiff turned around, Defendant Ranno disbursed a half second burst of pepper spray on Plaintiff's face, and Plaintiff lost his balance and fell and struck the back of his head on the pavement. (Ranno Decl. ¶¶ 25-26; Carrozzo Decl. ¶¶ 22-23.) When Defendant Ranno tried to handcuff Plaintiff, Plaintiff turned to his stomach, rolled from side to side, and locked his hands under his stomach to prevent Defendant Ranno from taking his hands. (Ranno Decl. ¶¶ 28-29; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 24.) Defendant Ranno struggled with Plaintiff and was eventually able to get him under control. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 30; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 25.) Defendants Ranno and Carrozzo then placed Plaintiff's hands behind his back and applied handcuffs. (Ranno Decl. ¶ 31; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 25.)

Defendants contend that Defendant Carrozzo did not strike, hit, or use pepper spray on Plaintiff. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 19.) Plaintiff disputes this, stating instead that he "was struck by both officers until he lost consciousness." (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 19.)

Defendants state that "during Plaintiff's arrest on November 19, 2018, Plaintiff was belligerent." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 18.) Plaintiff disputes this fact. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 18.) In the portion of Plaintiff's deposition Defendants cite to in support of this proposition, Plaintiff testified that he "probably was belligerent when [he] woke up and found [him]self in handcuffs." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 18.)

Defendants recovered heroin from Plaintiff which was packaged in approximately 350 wax paper envelopes in a tube sock that was duct taped to Plaintiff's left inner thigh. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) Plaintiff contends that the heroin was found after Plaintiff was arrested. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 36.) Defendants argue that this is a disputed fact, and state in response that "Defendants recovered heroin [on] Plaintiff's person after Plaintiff's vehicle was stopped." (Defs.' 56.1 Resp. ¶ 36.) However, the declarations Defendants cite to in support of this proposition explicitly state that the heroin was recovered after Plaintiff was handcuffed. (Konan Decl. Ex. 3, at 70:16-20; Ex. 1, at 111:16-25; Ranno Decl. ¶ 33; Carrozzo Decl. ¶ 27.) Accordingly, there is no dispute that the heroin was recovered after Plaintiff was handcuffed.

Plaintiff was taken to Orange County jail on November 19, 2018; the jail would not accept him until he had been brought to the hospital because he was unconscious. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 39.)

Plaintiff was arrested for intent to sell and possession of a controlled substance (N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16, a Class B felony, and N.Y. Penal Law § 220.09, a Class C felony, respectively), obstructing governmental administration (N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05, a misdemeanor), and resisting arrest (N.Y. Penal Law § 205.30, a misdemeanor). (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13.) Defendant Carrozzo provided the sworn statements in the felony complaints and misdemeanor information issued to Plaintiff and signed them. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant Carrozzo typed up his incident report after speaking with Defendant Ranno. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 32.) Defendants did not testify in court or before a grand jury in connection with the criminal charges against Plaintiff. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 16.) Defendants did not fabricate any evidence in connection with the incident at issue. (Id. ¶ 17.) The charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. (Id. 56.1 ¶ 15; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 31.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on June 28, 2021. (Dkt. No. 16.) Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on June 3, 2022. (Defs.' Mem. (Dkt. No. 38).) Plaintiff filed his Motion in Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on July 19, 2022. (Pl.'s Mem. (Dkt. No. 46).) Defendants filed their Reply and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on August 24, 2022. (Defs.' Reply Mem. (Dkt. No. 49).) Plaintiff filed his Reply on September 6, 2022. (Pl.'s Reply Mem. (Dkt. No. 51).)

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that "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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (same); Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). "In deciding whether to award summary judgment, the court must construe the record evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw...