Jamison v. Carada

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM ORDER: denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration. In his opposition to Defendant's motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that the Court "should reconsider its decision dismissing plaintiff's malicious prosecution clai m." (Docket Entry No. 86 at 4.) Plaintiff's request fails to comply with the requirements for motion papers set forth in Local Civil Rule 7.1. Even if Plaintiff's request was properly submitted, it is untimely: Local Civil Rule 6.3 req uires motions for reconsideration to be filed within 14 daysafter the entry of the Court's determination of the original motion. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration comes more than two months after the Court decided Defendant's mot ion for summary judgment and Plaintiff has not proffered any explanation for his delay. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Court's December Order (to the extent that it dismissed Plaintiff's malicious prosecuti on claim) is denied. This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial management. The parties are directed to contact Judge Aaron's chambers by Wednesday, June 17, 2020, to schedule a settlement conference. (Docket Entry No. 78.) This Memorandum Order resolves Docket Entry No. 80. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/10/2020) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
D’ANTHONY JAMISON,
Plaintiff,
-v-

No. 17-CV-1764-LTS-SDA

DET. NATHAN CAVADA,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (docket entry no. 80)
of the portion of the Court’s December 5, 2019, Memorandum Order (“December Order,” docket
entry no. 69) that denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s denial of
the right to a fair trial claim. Defendant also seeks clarification as to the scope of the Court’s
ruling on Plaintiff’s April 1, 2014, false arrest claim. The Court has considered the parties’
submissions carefully and, for the following reasons, grants Defendant’s motion for
reconsideration and clarifies that recovery on Plaintiff’s April 1, 2014, false arrest claim is
limited to the conduct before Detective Cavada discovered Mr. Jamison’s outstanding arrest
warrant.
Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Right to a Fair Trial Claim
A motion for reconsideration is not intended as “a vehicle for relitigating old
issues, presenting the case under new theories . . . or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple.”
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012). Indeed,
reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interest of finality

CAVADA MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION.DOCX

VERSION JUNE 10, 2020

1

and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F.
Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). To warrant
reconsideration, the moving party bears the heavy burden of showing “an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a
manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245,
1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant moves for reconsideration
pursuant to Local Rule 6.3, which is “intended to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent
the practice of a losing party plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.”
Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 178 F. Supp. 3d 181, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
(internal citations omitted). “[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that
might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)
Defendant asserts that the Court erred in denying his motion for summary
judgment as to Plaintiff’s denial of the right to a fair trial claim “since it overlooked the fact that
the underlying criminal prosecution was not favorably resolved and, accordingly, there can be no
denial of the right to a fair trial claim.” (Docket Entry No. 82 at 5.) In support of this
proposition, Defendant cites McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019), which, he asserts,
held that “a denial of the right to a fair trial claim requires that the underlying criminal
proceeding resolve in the plaintiff’s favor in order to be actionable.” (Id. at 1.)
The Court notes that, while McDonough was decided after Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment was fully briefed, Defendant failed to file a notice of supplemental
authority or otherwise bring the decision to the Court’s attention during the nearly six-month

CAVADA MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION.DOCX

VERSION JUNE 10, 2020

2

period between the publication of McDonough and this Court’s issuance of the December Order.
Having reviewed the McDonough decision, the Court agrees that reconsideration of the
December Order’s disposition of Plaintiff’s denial of the right to a fair trial claim is warranted by
a change in controlling authority and that McDonough compels dismissal of that claim for
substantially the reasons underlying the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution
claim.
McDonough, resolving a circuit split, holds that a plaintiff “[cannot] bring his
bring his fabricated-evidence claim under § 1983 prior to favorable termination of his
prosecution.” 139 S. Ct. at 2154, 2156. Thus, in order to proceed with his denial of a right to a
fair trial claim based on fabricated evidence, Plaintiff must be able to show that the proceedings
terminated in his favor. “[P]roceedings are terminated in favor of the accused only when their
final disposition is such as to indicate the accused is not guilty[;]” a plaintiff must demonstrate
“affirmative indications of innocence to establish ‘favorable termination.’” Lanning v. City of
Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 23, 25-26, 29 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the
Court concluded in the December Order, because a dismissal on speedy trial grounds does not
affirmatively indicate that Plaintiff was innocent of the charges, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that
the proceedings were terminated in his favor. Thus, McDonough compels the conclusion that
Plaintiff “[cannot] bring his fabricated-evidence claim under § 1983.” 139 S. Ct. at 2156.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is granted and, upon reconsideration,
summary judgment of Plaintiff’s denial of the right to a fair trial claim is granted.
Clarification of Scope of Plaintiff’s April 1, 2014, False Arrest Claim
Defendant requests “clarification of the portion of the Memorandum Order
pertaining to the false arrest claim stemming from Plaintiff’s April 1, 2014 arrest – specifically,

CAVADA MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION.DOCX

VERSION JUNE 10, 2020

3

the detention time attributable thereto.” (Docket Entry No. 82 at 6.) Defendant contends that
“Plaintiff’s damages in this matter should be limited solely to the period of detainment between
the initial stop and the discovery of the open arrest warrants.” (Id.) Plaintiff disputes this
position and asserts, without citation to evidence, that “the existence of a warrant for plaintiff is
disputed.” (Docket Entry No. 86 at 4.)
Defendant has proffered evidence, which Plaintiff has not genuinely disputed, that
Mr. Jamison had an outstanding warrant at the time of his April 1, 2014, arrest. (Docket Entry
No. 87 at 5) (citing Declaration of Evan F. Jaffe in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 51, Ex. F). Once Defendant discovered Plaintiff’s outstanding
warrant, Defendant “had the right to arrest the plaintiff.” Galarza v. Monti, 327 F. Supp. 3d 594,
603 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Thus, because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine “is not available to
assist a § 1983 claimant,” the intervening probable cause defeats Plaintiff’s claim for damages
after Defendant discovered Plaintiff’s outstanding arrest warrant. See Townes v. City of New
York, 176 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding plaintiff’s damage claim for false arrest limited
to “the brief invasion of privacy related to the seizure and initial search of his person” where
defendants subsequently obtained probable cause to arrest “upon discovery of the handguns in
the passenger compartment of the taxicab in which he was riding”). Therefore, Plaintiff may
only recover damages for the conduct that preceded Defendant’s discovery of Plaintiff’s
outstanding arrest warrant.
Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration
In his opposition to Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that
the Court “should reconsider its decision dismissing plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim.”
(Docket Entry No. 86 at 4.) Plaintiff’s request fails to comply with the requirements for motion

CAVADA MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION.DOCX

VERSION JUNE 10, 2020

4

papers set forth in Local Civil Rule 7.1. Even if Plaintiff’s request was properly submitted, it is
untimely: Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within 14 days
after the entry of the Court’s determination of the original motion. Plaintiff’s request for
reconsideration comes more than two months after the Court decided Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and Plaintiff has not proffered any explanation for his delay. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s December Order (to the extent that it
dismissed Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim) is denied.
This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial
management. The parties are directed to contact Judge Aaron’s chambers by Wednesday, June
17, 2020, to schedule a settlement conference. (Docket Entry No. 78.)
This Memorandum Order resolves Docket Entry No. 80.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
June 10, 2020
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
United States District Judge

CAVADA MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION.DOCX

VERSION JUNE 10, 2020

5