Faltine v. City of New York et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is deniedon the grounds of futility. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 2/26/2013. (Siegfried, Evan)

,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------]{
KIAMA FAL TINE,

Plaintiff,
-againstMEMORANDUM AND ORDER
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER
MIGUEL VARGAS (Shield# 13912; Tax# 945075),:
SERGEANT ERIC NOLAN (Tax #924256) and
POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1-3,

12-cv-03487 (ENV) (SMG)

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------]{
VITALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiff Kiama Faltine has requested leave to file a second amended complaint adding
Detective Harry Menendez as a defendant in this action. Faltine's sole allegation against
Menendez is that, some four years prior to the subject incident, the detective issued an
identification card, or "I-Card," indicating that plaintiff was sought as a witness to a crime.
Faltine claims that the other defendant officers unlawfully detained and searched him upon
learning of this I-Card after arresting him. Nowhere in the complaint does Faltine plead any facts
indicating that Menendez's issuance of the I-Card was unlawful or unwarranted. Nor does he
allege that Menendez had any communication with the other defendants regarding Faltine's
arrest, detention, and search. Indeed, plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest Menendez was even
aware of the incident alleged in the complaint. Simply put, there are no facts in the proposed
amended complaint to suggest any liability on the part of Menendez due to the subject
occurrence.

I

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the proposed amended complaint would fail to state a claim against
Menendez that would survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (a complaint merits dismissal if it lacks
factual content "allow[ing] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged"). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is denied
on the grounds of futility. See Foster v. Humane Society ofRochester and Monroe County, Inc.,
724 F.Supp.2d 382,397 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) ("It is well established that a district court may deny
leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.") (citing Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97,
104 (2d Cir.2009)).
SO ORDERED.

s/ ENV
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 26,2013

2