Carmichael ex rel. Estate of Moore v. City of New York, 95 Fed. R. Serv. 1

Plaintiff Carmichael, as administrator of Romona Moore's estate, sues City of New York under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1981 for discriminatory police response to Moore's disappearance.
Moore, 21, disappeared April 24, 2003; Moore's mother reported her missing April 25; initial NYPD response labeled her not missing due to age.
Patrol Guide defines missing persons and lists categories for immediate investigation; Moore was not initially categorized as a missing person under Category G.
Public officials later prompted investigation; Moore's body was found May 10, 2003; Moore was kidnapped and murdered by others.
Plaintiff compares NYPD response to Moore with response to Svetlana Aronov (white woman) whose case was designated Category G and investigated promptly.
Plaintiff presents statistical evidence by an economist and bloodhound/return-search arguments to show alleged citywide discrimination; defendant challenges admissibility and reliability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 equal protection claim against the City survives	Carmichael asserts City’s discriminatory response to Moore violated equal protection by delaying investigation for Black missing persons.	City argues no state action or discriminatory intent proven; argues absence of a citywide policy.	§ 1983 claim dismissed; no showing of persistent citywide discriminatory practice.
Whether Monell municipal liability requires a widespread custom or policy	Plaintiff argues City’s pattern of failure to provide immediate searches for Black missing persons implies a policy.	City contends no evidence of a persistent policy or discriminatory intent; statistics insufficient.	Monell claim fails; no evidence of a widespread practice or causation.
Whether § 1981 claim lies for discriminatory denial of protective police services	Alleges race-based denial of non-protective services in missing-person response violates § 1981.	§ 1981 requires intentional race discrimination; no sufficient proof of such discrimination.	§ 1981 claim dismissed.
Whether damages are available given lack of proximate causation	Contends that timely investigation could have saved Moore; seeks compensatory damages for proximate injury.	No proximate causation shown; even if Monell, damages limited to nominal.	Damages limited; no compensatory damages due to lack of proximate causation.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (selective denial of protective services violates equal protection)
Pyke v. Cuomo, 258 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2001) (racial discrimination claims under EP/§1983 need substantial evidence)
Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Dep't, 577 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (requires pattern or evidence of discriminatory intent for municipal liability)
Sorlucco v. New York City Police Dep’t, 971 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1992) (illustrates persistent discriminatory practice sufficient for policy)
Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (official policy can be inferred from widespread discriminatory practices)
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (municipal liability requires moving force of policy causing violation)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (nominal damages for violation of substantive rights if no actual injury shown)
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
Moua v. City of Chico, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (pattern evidence required; isolated incidents insufficient for EP liability)