629 F.Supp.3d 166
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Plaintiff Ariel Barkai (pro se) was stopped after pulling off the Thruway; an officer (Mendez) issued a ticket and allegedly approached/handled him without a mask during the COVID pandemic.
- Barkai called CPD Sergeant Laschet to complain; during a highly agitated call he said, “might as well stick a gun in my mouth,” and described past suicidal episodes and current distress. Laschet dispatched officers.
- Responding officers removed Barkai from his car, handcuffed and searched him and his vehicle, found no weapon, and transported him to Good Samaritan Hospital’s psychiatric holding area for about two hours; he was released and later billed (bill rescinded).
- Barkai sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Fourth, First, Sixth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, plus Monell and state-law theories, naming Mendez, Laschet, several supervisors, and formerly unnamed responding officers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The Court treated police reports and audio recordings as incorporated into the Amended Complaint and resolved the motion: it dismissed some claims/defendants and allowed First and Fourth Amendment claims to proceed against Mendez limited to the alleged extension of Barkai’s confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal involvement of supervisors (Cummings, Wannamaker, McCallugh) | Supervisors failed to address misconduct; their inaction suffices for liability | Plaintiff did not plead each supervisor’s personal action causing constitutional deprivation | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead personal involvement or supervisory action; claims against these supervisors and Former John Doe defendants dismissed |
| Sixth Amendment (fabrication/perjury by Mendez) | Mendez lied about how far he stood from Barkai; fabricated info undermined prosecution | Any alleged lie was not material to the charged traffic offense and thus not a fair-trial violation | Dismissed as pleaded: Barkai did not plausibly allege the alleged fabrication was material to the prosecution/jury decision |
| Fourth Amendment (mental-health seizure under NY Mental Hygiene Law) — initial seizure vs extension | Initial seizure and later transport to hospital were unlawful and not supported by probable cause | Officers had probable cause/arguable probable cause to seize and transport Barkai given his agitated call and suicide references; qualified immunity applies | Mixed: Court found recordings and facts warranted probable cause for the initial seizure (Laschet and responding officers) and dismissed Fourth Amendment claim against Laschet; but Barkai plausibly alleged lack of probable cause (and lack of arguable probable cause) to extend confinement and transport to hospital — claim against Mendez regarding extension survives (motion denied as to that aspect) |
| First Amendment (retaliatory arrest) | Barkai was punished/transported in retaliation for complaints about Mendez; confinement chilled speech and caused emotional harm | Probable cause defeated retaliation claim; no causal/retaliatory motive alleged; qualified immunity | Mixed: First Amendment claims against Laschet dismissed (probable cause and no retaliatory motive). Claim against Mendez survives as to the alleged extension of confinement immediately after Barkai complained to officers, which could show a retaliatory causal link |
| Monell (municipal liability) | Town policies or customs caused constitutional violations | No municipal policy/custom alleged or pleaded; plaintiff withdrew municipal claims | Dismissed: Amended Complaint lacks allegations of an unconstitutional municipal policy or custom; Monell claims dismissed |
| Due process (substantive/procedural) | Civil commitment misapplied to punish/avoid accountability; procedural protections lacking | Substantive claims duplicative of Fourth Amendment; NYMHL provides no pretransport hearing | Dismissed: substantive due process not cognizable against officers here and procedural due process claim fails under NYMHL; plaintiff also voluntarily abandoned Fourteenth Amendment claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain more than legal conclusions)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity framework and discretion in prong order)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (individual/supervisory liability requires personal actions by each defendant)
- Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements for a fair-trial claim based on fabrication of evidence)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (officer who fabricates information that likely influences a jury violates fair-trial rights)
- Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2001) (objective reasonableness; officers cannot ignore plainly exculpatory evidence; involuntary psychiatric transport can chill speech)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (concrete harms include certain intangible injuries for standing and redressability)