Hayward v. The City of New York et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting Pltff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting Pltff's 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. All claims against the City of NY and P.O. John Doe are dismissed without preju dice pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915A. No summonses shall issue as to these defts and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to reflect their dismissal. Pltff's claims, however, shall proceed against P.O. Jeffrey Hill of the 73rd Pct. The US Marshal Service is directed to serve the summons, complaint, and this Memorandum and Order upon the remaining deft without prepayment of fees. A courtesy copy of the same papers shall be mailed to the Corporation Counsel for the City of NY. Al l pretrial matters are referred to USMJ Pollak. The court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 8/15/2012) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

'

·

FILED

'~

us cl~r~T5~~~3~~~~.~~\~~~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

*

DAVID HAYWARD,

SROOKI.YN OFFICE

--------------------------------------------------------X

AU6172012Y'b;

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
12-CV-3220 (ENV)

Plaintiff,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK; P.O. JEFFREY
HILL, 73" Precinct, Badge# Unknown;
P.O. JOHN DOE, 73" Precinct,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------X
VITALIANO, United States District Judge:

.

Plaintiff David Hayward, who is currently incarcerated at the Groveland Correctional
Facility, files this prose civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of

New York and several individual defendants. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is gnmted. For the reasons discussed below, the City of New York
and defendant John Doe are dismissed from the action. The claims, however, against defendant
Jeffrey Hill sbail proceed.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that on August 16, 2011, he was falsely arrested at his home in Brooklyn,
New York by Police Officer Jeffrey Hill of the 73" Precinct He states that the charges against

him were subsequently disntissed, but resulted in a parole violation and one-year prison sentence.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys.
The Court is required to read a plaintiff's prose complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the

v

strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Parous, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449
U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant #I, 537F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).

Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of"all wellpleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kjobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
~-

621 F.3d Ill, 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v.lgbal. 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)). A

complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Ail. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Under 28 U.S. C. § 1915A, a district court "shall review, before docketing, if feasible or,

in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a

prisoner seeks redre_ss from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Upon review, a district court shall dismiss a prisoner's complaint

sua sponte if the complaint is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." ld.;
Linerv. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 134 & n.l (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, sua sponte dismissal of frivolous prisoner complaints is not only permitted but
mandatory); see also Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999).
DISCUSSION

Claims against the City of New York and John Doe
Plaintiff's claims against the City ofNew York must be dismissed. A municipality can
be liable under § 1983 only if a plaintiff can show that a municipal policy or custom caused the

deprivation of his constitutional rights.

~Monell

v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-

91 (1978). The. doctrine of respondeat superior cannot be used to establish municipal liability.
2

..
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011); Cash v. Countv of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 33334 (2d Cir. 2011); Dzugas-Smith v. Southhold Union Free School Dist., No. 08 CV 1319, 2012
WL 1655540, at •20 (E.D.N.Y. May 9, 2012). Here, plaintiff does not allege, and nothing in his
complaint suggests, that any of the allegedly wrongful acts or omissions on the part of any City

employee are attributable to a municipal policy or custom. Thus, plaintiff has not made a
showing, in his pleadings, sufficient to impose Monell liability on the City of New York.
Furthermore, "[i]t is well settled in this Circuit that 'personal involvement of defendants
in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983. '"
Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470,484 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501
(2d Cir. 1991)). Here, although plaintiff names Police Officer John Doe as a defeodant in the

caption of the complaint, he fails to make any allegations against or otherwise discuss that
defeodant in the body of his pleading. Plaintiff's claims against Police Officer John Doe are,

therefore, dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, all claims against the City of New York and Police Officer John Doe are
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S. C.§ 1915A No summonses shall issue as to

these defendants and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to reflect their dismissal.
Plaintiff's claims, however, shall proceed against Police Officer Jeffrey Hill of the 73"' Precinct.

The United States Marshal Service is directed to serve the summons, complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order upon the remaining defendant without prepayment of fees. A courtesy
copy of the same papers shall be mailed to the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York.
All pretrial matters are referred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak. The Court certifies

3

..
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore
in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Copjled~ v. United States, 269 U.S.

438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 15, 2012

- ·. iE~~~C~N;.~~I~T~ALit~mo~·T(.·~·'ti,,.,..., i!lJ"~~·I>j·...f·t!llltoij·.t>">""-~-._
.....
United States District Judge

4