Woodward v. The City of Rochester et al

Filing 44

DECISION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 36 ). The Court's prior decision dismissing the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims is hereby VACATED in that respect, and those claims are REINSTATED. This matter will otherwise proceed in accordance with the agreed-upon mediation plan. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 1/18/2023. (MFM)

Case 6:21-cv-06685-FPG Document 44 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STEPHANIE WOODWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case # 21-CV-6685-FPG
DECISION & ORDER

THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al.,
Defendants.
On May 2, 2022, Defendants County of Monroe, Sheriff Todd Baxter, and Richard Roes
1-200 moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint, including Plaintiff’s claims against the
County under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act. ECF No. 14.
In its Decision & Order on the motion, the Court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims
because “Plaintiff fail[ed] to address [Defendants’] argument” and because the amended complaint
did not sufficiently allege “that the County is liable for either claim.” ECF No. 32 at 18. In fact,
Plaintiff had addressed those claims in her opposition memorandum. See ECF No. 20 at 14-16.
Consequently, Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to dismiss the ADA
and Rehabilitation Act claims. ECF No. 36. The County opposes the motion, ECF No. 40, and
Plaintiff has filed her reply. ECF No. 42. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is
GRANTED.
Because, in its original Decision & Order, the Court overlooked Plaintiff’s arguments
concerning the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, the Court considers it appropriate to assess
the sufficiency of those claims de novo pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 1
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “any order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights
and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised

1

1

Case 6:21-cv-06685-FPG Document 44 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 5

A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when it states a plausible
claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). A claim for relief is plausible when
the plaintiff pleads sufficient facts that allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678. In considering the plausibility of a
claim, the Court must accept factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff’s favor. Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). At the same time,
the Court is not required to accord “[l]egal conclusions, deductions, or opinions couched as factual
allegations . . . a presumption of truthfulness.” In re NYSE Specialists Secs. Litig., 503 F.3d 89,
95 (2d Cir. 2007).
By way of brief background, Plaintiff is paralyzed from the waist down and “exclusively
uses a wheelchair for mobility.” ECF No. 12 at 1. On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff attended a
protest at City Hall in Rochester.

During the protest, officers with the Rochester Police

Department (“RPD”) arrested and detained a number of protestors, including Plaintiff. Id. at 2.
The protestors were transported to the Public Safety Building for “booking and arrest processing.”
Id. RPD officers relied on vans, owned by the County and operated by the Monroe County
Sheriff’s Office, to transport the protestors. Id.
However, Plaintiff could not be transported because neither RPD nor the Monroe County
Sheriff’s Office “owns or has access to any wheelchair-accessible transport vehicles.” Id. As RPD
officers considered how to transport her, Plaintiff informed them that, due to her disability, “when
she felt the urge to urinate, she would have to go immediately, or she would urinate on herself.”
Id. at 24. Over the course of two hours, RPD officers continued to detain Plaintiff in the same

at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322
F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that Rule 54(b) gives a “district court discretion to revisit earlier rulings” where,
inter alia, there is a need “to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice”).

2

Case 6:21-cv-06685-FPG Document 44 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 5

location. ECF No. 12 at 25. Throughout that time, Plaintiff “repeatedly informed [the RPD
officers] that she had to urinate, but they did not permit her to use the bathroom.” Id. “As a result,
[Plaintiff] urinated on herself.” Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff was given an appearance ticket and “told
she could leave.” Id. Plaintiff claims that that the County violated the ADA and Rehabilitation
Act by “failing to provide wheelchair accessible transportation vehicles.” ECF No. 12 at 43-44;
see also ECF No. 36-1 at 7 (asserting that the Amended Complaint “pleaded viable disability
discrimination claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act as a result of the County’s failure to
provide her a reasonable accommodation in her post-arrest transportation”).
As an initial matter, the County does not contend that a disabled arrestee’s post-arrest
transportation falls outside the scope of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. See, e.g., Woods v. City
of Utica, 902 F. Supp. 2d 273, 280 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (“An arrestee can establish liability under the
ADA and Rehabilitation Act by showing defendants failed to provide a reasonable accommodation
for his disability during the course of the arrest and post-arrest, causing him to suffer greater injury
or indignity than other arrestees.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d
907, 913 (8th Cir. 1998) (“[Plaintiff’s] allegations that the defendants denied him the benefit of
post-arrest transportation appropriate in light of his disability fall within the framework of both
Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.”). Nor does the County assert that
Plaintiff’s particular theory of liability—that the City and County failed to provide accessible
transport vehicle for her—is not cognizable. Cf. Gorman, 152 F.3d at 913 (noting that, under the
ADA and Rehabilitation Act, a disabled arrestee is entitled to be “transported in a safe and
appropriate manner consistent with his disability”).
Rather, the County’s sole argument in favor of dismissal is that the County is not
sufficiently alleged to have been involved in Plaintiff’s arrest, detention, and transportation. See

3

Case 6:21-cv-06685-FPG Document 44 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 5

ECF No. 22-2 at 14; see also Bacon v. City of Richmond, Va., 475 F.3d 633, 642 (4th Cir. 2007)
(“[T]he plain text of Title II limits responsibility to public entities that discriminate against or
exclude persons with disabilities from the services, programs, or activities administered by the
entity.” (emphasis added)). Plaintiff counters that the amended complaint plausibly alleges that
RPD and the County “coordinated the police response to the September 16, 2020 protest” and that
“the County agreed to provide transportation vehicles to transport all of the arrestees for arrest
processing.” ECF No. 42 at 3.
Having reviewed the briefing, and reading the amended complaint in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, the Court rejects the County’s argument and permits Plaintiff’s ADA and
Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed to discovery. Plaintiff alleges that, as part of the police
response to the September 2020 protests in Rochester, RPD and the Monroe County Sheriff’s
Office engaged in significant coordination of their activities. For example, policymaking officials
at both agencies “designed and orchestrated [an] unlawful protest response plan,” and the “multiagency response” was “managed under a Unified Command” between the City, the County, RPD,
and the Sheriff’s Office. See ECF No. 12 at 11, 12. This coordination did not only exist with
respect to high-level strategy.

On September 5, 2020, both agencies operated together to

strategically “kettle” protestors into a small area before using excessive force against them. See
id. at 3. And, on September 16, 2020, the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office worked with RPD
officers to transport arrested protestors from the protest site to the Public Safety Building. See id.
at 2, 24-25. Indeed, Deputy Sheriffs transported all of the other arrestees to the Public Safety
Building, except for Plaintiff. See id. at 2.
From these allegations, one can reasonably infer that “the City and County defendants
coordinated the police response to the September 16, 2020 protest,” that “the County agreed to

4

Case 6:21-cv-06685-FPG Document 44 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 5

provide transportation vehicles to transport all of the arrestees for arrest processing,” and that “the
County defendants were made aware of the need to transport [Plaintiff].” ECF No. 42 at 3. That
is, regardless of whether RPD was the formal arresting agency, the amended complaint plausibly
alleges that the County coordinated with the City, RPD, and RPD officers to provide post-arrest
transportation to all arrested protestors on September 16, 2020. The amended complaint further
alleges that, because the County does not have wheelchair-accessible transportation vehicles, it
refused to provide that same service to Plaintiff. See ECF No. 12 at 43-44. Reading the allegations
in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court must reject the County’s assertion that the
amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege the County’s involvement in the putative ADA and
Rehabilitation Act violations.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 36). The
Court’s prior decision dismissing the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims is hereby VACATED in
that respect, and those claims are REINSTATED.

This matter will otherwise proceed in

accordance with the agreed-upon mediation plan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 18, 2023
Rochester, New York

______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Judge
Western District of New York

5