Williams v. Carter

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the complaint in its entirety. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 10/21/2014. (amt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------JEFFREY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
-v-

7:13-CV-382

ROBERT CARTER, Investigator, Police
Officer, NYS State Police, Princetown
Station, Troop G, Zone 3,
Defendant.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

JEFFREY WILLIAMS, pro se
12-A-0840
Ulster Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 800
Berme Road
Napanoch, NY 12458
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorneys for Defendant
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

TIFFINAY M. RUTNIK, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General

MEMORANDUM–DECISION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 5, 2013, plaintiff Jeffrey Williams ("plaintiff" or "Williams") commenced this
action against Investigator Robert Carter ("defendant" or "Inv. Carter") of the New York State
Police ("NYSP"). Liberally construing the complaint, Williams asserts Fourth Amendment
claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
The parties have completed discovery, and defendant has filed a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The motion is fully briefed and was
considered on submit without oral argument.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following pertinent facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.2 In April 2011
Inv. Carter was assigned to a team of law enforcement officers investigating the burglary of
two convenience stores, one in Schenectady County and one in Schoharie County, in New
York state. Both occurred in the early morning hours of April 27, 2011.
First, at approximately 2:36 a.m. on that date, someone broke into the Gulf Brothers

1

Williams also delineated a cause of action for "filing a false instrument"—specifically, an application
for an arrest warrant. Compl., ECF No. 1, 3. Such a claim is subsumed within the false arrest and malicious
prosecution claims. Further, although he uses the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" in the complaint,
he fails to put forth any factual allegations to support an Eighth Amendment claim. Moreover, Inv. Carter had
no personal involvement in any conduct that occurred at the Albany County Correctional Facility and was not
responsible for the conditions of plaintiff's confinement at that facility. Finally, during discovery and in
response to the pending motion, plaintiff alleged that Inv. Carter's failure to remove an arrest warrant from a
computer database caused him to be ineligible for certain prison programs. Assuming he is now attempting
to assert a due process claim, there are no factual allegations in the complaint to support same. Nor is there
any indication that Inv. Carter was responsible for managing the database. Therefore, only the false arrest
and malicious prosecution claims will be addressed.
2
In response to defendant's Statement of Material Facts, plaintiff merely indicates whether he admits
or denies the alleged fact in each numbered paragraph. He neither explains his denials nor cites to specific
evidence in the record supporting his denial, as required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Therefore, his version of
the factual allegations has been gleaned from his assertions elsewhere in the record.

-2-

Convenient Mart in Princetown, Schenectady County, by throwing a brick through the front
glass door ("the Schenectady Burglary"). Surveillance video shows a suspect dressed in a
dark hooded sweatshirt, gloves, and white sneakers. The suspect put cartons of cigarettes
into a large cardboard box before fleeing the store. See Rutnik Decl., Ex. H.
Shortly thereafter, at about 2:58 a.m., a similar burglary occurred sixteen miles away
at the Apple Food convenience store in the Town and County of Schoharie ("the Schoharie
Burglary"). Surveillance video from the store shows a clear depiction of the suspect's face as
he emerges from a four-door Buick LeSabre in the parking lot. The suspect—clad in a dark
hooded sweatshirt, gloves, and white sneakers—then throws a block through the front glass
door, enters the store, and puts cartons of cigarettes into a large cardboard box before
fleeing in the Buick. See Rutnik Decl., Ex. I.
During the course of his investigation, Inv. Carter learned of several similar unsolved
burglaries in the general area.3 For example, the Global Gas convenience store in Sullivan
County, New York, had been burglarized in the early morning hours of February 12, 2011.
Surveillance video reportedly shows the perpetrator arriving in a four-door Buick LeSabre
bearing a partial license plate number of "7415." The suspect gained entry to the store by
throwing a concrete block through the front glass window and, once inside, stole cartons of
cigarettes. The Buick reportedly sustained damage to the driver's side when the suspect
backed into a pillar near the station's gas tanks. On April 16, 2011, someone burglarized the
Countryside Grocery in Schoharie County. Like the other crimes, the perpetrator smashed
through the glass front door and stole cigarettes.
3

In fact, notes from the record indicate that "[a] total of 12 incidents matching this description have
occurred from 01/09/11 through 04/27/11 in Albany, Saratoga, and Rensselaer counties." Pl.'s Ex. H, ECF
No. 22-3, 31, ¶ 15.
-3-

A search of Department of Motor Vehicle records revealed a blue Buick LeSabre,
license plate number "EVW 7415," registered to Barbara B. Coles of Menands, New York.
Police also discovered that a Miles Bailey of Albany filed an insurance claim alleging that the
same Buick LeSabre had been damaged at a gas station in Albany on February 14, 2011.
The Albany Police Department did not receive a report of the incident described in Bailey's
insurance claim. Subsequent investigation indicated that Barbara Coles was Miles Bailey's
girlfriend, and Bailey was plaintiff's landlord at the time of the burglaries.
Police soon located the Buick LeSabre in the City of Albany and placed it under
surveillance. Williams was observed and photographed removing property from the vehicle.
Inv. Carter compared these pictures with the video footage of the Schoharie Burglary suspect
and concluded they were the same person. Williams denies that he is the person in the
surveillance video from the Schoharie Burglary, even though he later pleaded guilty to that
crime. After obtaining plaintiff's name and date of birth, police learned he had a criminal
history that included an arrest in July 2003 for breaking into a convenience store in Colonie,
Albany County. In that burglary, the perpetrator threw a concrete block through a glass front
door and stole cigarettes. Plaintiff was arrested close to the scene with evidence of the
crime on his person.4
On May 11, 2011, armed with the above information, Inv. Carter secured a warrant to
install a global positioning system ("GPS") tracking device on the Buick LeSabre. In the early
morning hours of May 15, 2011, the GPS device indicated that the vehicle had left the City of
Albany and stopped in the area of 106 Maple Avenue, Voorheesville, Albany County. A

4

Plaintiff summarily denies this prior conviction. However, during his deposition, he acknowledged
that he had been convicted in the past for similar crimes. Rutnik Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 19-5, 27.
-4-

uniformed NYSP Trooper was dispatched to that location. Inv. Carter began driving toward
the area as well but soon passed the Buick LeSabre driving in the opposite direction. He
turned around to pursue the vehicle and, shortly thereafter, was advised that the Mobil Mart
at 106 Maple Avenue had been burglarized ("the Albany Burglary").
Inv. Carter stopped the Buick LeSabre. Williams was driving the vehicle and another
male was in the passenger seat. A search of the vehicle revealed a cardboard box filled with
cartons of cigarettes that had been stolen during the Albany Burglary. Inv. Carter placed
plaintiff under arrest, and he was lodged in the Albany County Correctional Facility.
The following day, with consent of plaintiff's live-in girlfriend, Inv. Carter searched
Williams's apartment and recovered three large cardboard boxes and an empty carton of
cigarettes. He compared the cardboard boxes to those depicted in the surveillance videos of
the Schenectady and Schoharie Burglaries, and concluded they were the same. Plaintiff
disputes this conclusion.
On June 2, 2011, while Williams remained in custody at the Albany County
Correctional Facility on charges stemming from the Albany Burglary, Inv. Carter filed a felony
complaint against him and obtained a warrant to arrest him for the Schenectady Burglary.
On June 15, 2011, plaintiff was transported from the Albany County Correctional Facility to
the Princetown Town Court, where he was arraigned on charges related to the Schenectady
Burglary.
On July 27, 2011, a grand jury returned an indictment formally charging Williams with
committing the Albany Burglary. He pleaded guilty to this crime on January 18, 2012. The
next day, the Princetown Town Court dismissed the charges stemming from the Schenectady
Burglary on Speedy Trial grounds. On February 26, 2012, plaintiff was sentenced to three
-5-

and a half to seven years in prison for the Albany Burglary. It is undisputed that he remained
in custody at the Albany County Correctional Facility from May 15, 2011, when he was
arrested for the Albany Burglary, through February 26, 2012, when he was sentenced and
transferred to the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision ("DOCCS").
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2012, a grand jury returned an indictment charging
Williams with committing the Schoharie Burglary. He pleaded guilty to these charges on
August 1, 2012, and was sentenced on October 24, 2012.5 He is presently serving these
sentences.
III. DISCUSSION
Williams alleges that Inv. Carter falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted him for
the Schenectady Burglary. Inv. Carter argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on
these claims because Williams was already incarcerated when he obtained the arrest
warrant and filed charges against him for the Schenectady Burglary and, therefore, he was
not deprived of a liberty interest. In the alternative, defendant maintains that he had probable
cause to arrest and initiate a criminal prosecution against plaintiff.6
A. Motion for Summary Judgment—Legal Standard
Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

5

This sentence runs consecutively to the sentence imposed for the Albany Burglary. Plaintiff has
appealed his conviction and sentence for the Schoharie Burglary. He did not appeal the conviction or
sentence for the Albany Burglary and readily admits his guilt for that crime.
6

Inv. Carter also asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity for claims against him in his individual
capacity and Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims against him in his official capacity. However, as
plaintiff's substantive constitutional claims fail and will be dismissed, it is unnecessary to reach defendant's
assertion of immunity. See Demoret v. Zegarelli, 451 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) ("If no constitutional or
statutory right was violated . . . we need not conduct further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.").
-6-

Procedure 56. The entry of summary judgment is warranted when "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247
(1986). A fact is "material" for purposes of this inquiry if it "might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Jeffreys v. City of New
York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). A material fact is genuinely in dispute "if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
When summary judgment is sought, the moving party bears the initial burden of
demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be decided with respect to
any essential element of the claim. Id. at 250 n.4. The failure to meet this burden warrants
denial of the motion. Id. In the event this initial burden is met, the opposing party must
show, through affidavits or otherwise, that there is a material issue of fact for trial. Id. at 250.
When deciding a summary judgment motion, a court must resolve any ambiguities
and draw all inferences from the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Jeffreys, 426 F.3d at 553. Summary judgment is inappropriate where "review of the record
reveals sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find in the [non-movant's] favor."
Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713, 719 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see also
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 (summary judgment is appropriate only when "there can be but
one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict").
Where, as here, the plaintiff proceeds pro se, "the court must construe his
-7-

submissions liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest."
Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
B. Deprivation of Liberty
Williams claims he was subject to false arrest and malicious prosecution when Inv.
Carter obtained a warrant to arrest him for the Schenectady Burglary and filed criminal
charges against him for that crime.
Section 1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution rest on the Fourth
Amendment right of an individual to be free from unreasonable seizures. See Weyant v.
Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996); Singer v. Fulton Cnty. Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 116 (2d
Cir. 1995). To succeed on such claims, a plaintiff must show an unreasonable deprivation of
liberty and satisfy the state law elements of the underlying claims. Manganiello v. City of
New York, 612 F.3d 149, 161–62 (2d Cir. 2010) (malicious prosecution); Jaegly v. Couch,
439 F.3d 149, 151–52 (2d Cir. 2006) (false arrest).
Williams's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims must be dismissed because
he did not suffer a deprivation of liberty as a result of the Schenectady Burglary charges and
arrest warrant. Indeed, it is undisputed that he was already in custody in the Albany County
Correctional Facility when Inv. Carter obtained the arrest warrant and filed the charges
against him. Further, he remained in custody—throughout the pendency of those charges—
for completely separate charges stemming from the Albany Burglary, to which he pleaded
guilty. Thus, Inv. Carter did not deprive him of liberty. See Singer, 63 F.3d at 116; Walker v.
Sankhi, 494 F. App'x 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order); Parker v. City of New York,
No. 05 Civ. 1803, 2008 WL 110904 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2008) ("A plaintiff does not have a
-8-

claim for false arrest or malicious prosecution under section 1983 if, at the time of his arrest
and prosecution, he is already in custody on other charges, because there is no deprivation
of liberty interests.").
Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
C. Probable Cause
Even if Williams could establish the requisite deprivation of liberty, his claims fail
because Inv. Carter had probable cause to arrest him and file criminal charges against him
for the Schenectady Burglary.
Defendant correctly notes that "[p]robable cause is a complete defense to any action
for false arrest or malicious prosecution in New York." Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d
732, 751 (2d Cir. 2010). "Probable cause exists when one has knowledge of, or reasonably
trustworthy information as to, facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person
of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the
person to be [charged]." Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71, 79 (2d Cir. 2008)
(alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The existence of probable cause
is an objective inquiry that is based upon the totality of the facts known by the officer at the
time of the arrest or when the criminal proceedings were initiated. Jaegly, 439 F.3d at 153.
Importantly, "probable cause can exist even where it is based on mistaken
information, so long as the arresting officer acted reasonably and in good faith in relying on
that information." Bernard v. United States, 25 F.3d 98, 102 (2d Cir. 1994). Finally, when an
arrest is made pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, it is "presumed
reasonable because such warrants may issue only upon a showing of probable cause."
Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 214 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
-9-

The totality of the circumstances known to Inv. Carter in May 2011 provided sufficient
probable cause to arrest and initiate criminal proceedings against Williams for the
Schenectady Burglary. Specifically, Inv. Carter knew the following: (1) A string of
convenience store burglaries had been committed in the same general area through a similar
modus operandi; to wit, the perpetrator threw a brick or concrete block through the front glass
window and stole cartons of cigarettes; (2) the suspect drove a four-door Buick LeSabre to at
least two of the burglaries and surveillance video revealed a partial license plate of "7415" on
the vehicle; (3) Williams was observed taking property out of a four-door Buick LeSabre with
license plate number "EVW 7415"; (4) that particular vehicle was registered to the girlfriend
of Williams's landlord, who had filed an insurance claim for damage sustained around the
same time surveillance video shows the burglary suspect backing into a pillar; (5) Williams
had at least one prior conviction for a similar burglary in 2003; and (6) Williams was arrested
on May 15, 2011, after he admittedly committed the Albany Burglary, during which he
smashed the front glass door of a convenience store with a brick, stole cigarettes, and was
driving the same Buick LeSabre.7
Moreover, Inv. Carter obtained warrants to place a GPS tracking device on the Buick
LeSabre and to arrest plaintiff for the Schenectady Burglary, suggesting these actions were
reasonable. In short, Inv. Carter had a wealth of reasonably trustworthy information to justify
his belief that Williams had committed the Schenectady Burglary, and no reasonable juror
could find otherwise.

7

According to defendant, he also knew that the large cardboard boxes found in plaintiff's apartment
matched those in the surveillance videos. Plaintiff disputes the similarity of the cardboard boxes. As all
factual allegations must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant on a motion for summary
judgment, this disputed matter will not be considered in the probable cause analysis. This hardly detracts
from the otherwise solid foundation of probable cause, which law enforcement built brick-by-brick.
- 10 -

Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Williams did not suffer a deprivation of liberty as a result of the arrest warrant and
criminal charges related to the Schenectady Burglary because he was already in custody on
other charges at the time. Further, Inv. Carter had ample information upon which to base his
reasonable belief that plaintiff had committed the Schenectady Burglary.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and
2. The complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.

Dated: October 21, 2014
Utica, New York.

- 11 -