Martin v. City of New York et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law and, accordingly, partial summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants. The cross motion is denied as well. The parties are directed to continue with any remaining discovery expeditiously and to move on to bring this litigation to a close. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/24/2011. (Brucella, Michelle)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
ISAMARTIN
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-against08-CV-5183 (ENV) (JO)
CITY OF NEW YORK, ERIC PENA, RICHARD
ORTIZ, MANUEL SEPULVEDA, ROBERT
WARSHEFSKIE, and JOHN AND JANE DOE 1
through 10, individually and in their official
capacities,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
VIT ALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiff Isa Martin commenced this civil rights action against defendants City of New
York, Eric Pena, Richard Ortiz, Manuel Sepulveda, and Robert Warshefskie (all New York City
police officers), alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
All defendants have moved for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has cross moved for partial summary judgment in his favor.
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs claim fails as a matter oflaw and, accordingly, partial
summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants. The cross motion is denied as well.
I.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the amended complaint and the submissions of the
parties, including defendants' and plaintiffs statements of undisputed material facts made
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 The facts are construed, as they must be in the summary
judgment context, in the light most favorable to Martin as the nonmoving party on the main
motion. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hamilton BeachlProctor Silex. Inc., 473 F.3d 450, 456 (2d Cir.
1
2007).
On June 13, 2007, Martin was arrested by Pena for possession of a loaded firearm, in
violation of New York Penal Law §§ 265.03 and 265.01(1). (See CompI., at, 13; Klein Decl., at
,12.)1 Two calendar days after his arrest, on June 15,2007, Martin was arraigned in Staten
Island Criminal Court, where Judge Desmond Green set bail at $10,000. (Zuckerman Decl., at,
6).2 Since plaintiff was unable to immediately post pail, he was remanded to Rikers Island
Correctional Facility. (ld. at '8). While incarcerated, another inmate, Vincent Catty, assaulted
him. (Klein Decl., at, 9). Apparently, this incident was not a random act of violence; rather, it
was the result of a grudge Catty held against plaintiff because of testimony plaintiff had provided
in the past against Catty's relative, John Washington. (Zuckerman Decl., at, 9).3 Martin
suffered numerous injuries in the assault, including a blowout fracture of the inferior orbital wall
of his right eye. (Am. CompI., at, 15). Both sides agree that neither plaintiff nor defendants
had knowledge of Catty's June 13,2007 arrest or of his subsequent remand to Rikers Island.
(Zuckerman Decl., at" 5, 10). When plaintiff arrived at Rikers Island, he did recognize Catty
from his neighborhood but did not tell anyone either before or during his incarceration about
their history. (Id. at, to).
Four days after he was arraigned, Martin's family and friends posted bail, (id.), and he
was released. (Am. CompI., at, 14). On September 20,2007, all the charges against him were
dismissed. (Am. Compl., at, 16). He commenced this action on December 19,2008, and filed
1 References
to "Klein Decl." denote the declaration of Brett H. Klein in support of plaintiffs
cross motion for summary judgment.
References to "Zuckerman Decl." denote the declaration of Mark D. Zuckerman in support of
defendant's motion for summary judgment.
2
During the assault, Catty called Martin a "snitch" for testifying against his relative.
(Zuckerman Decl., at, 9).
3
2
an amended complaint on July 22, 2009. The complaint sets forth 19 causes of action, nine
grounded in federal law and ten supplemental state law claims. All nine federal causes of
action-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?