Diango v. The City of New York
1:15-cv-03106
S.D.N.Y.May 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kieta Diango (pro se) sued the City of New York and two NYPD officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law after a traffic stop and arrest for an allegedly forged 30‑day temporary vehicle registration tag.
- Officers observed a temporary tag that listed Diango as owner despite his admitting he was not the owner; Diango provided documentation containing ownership discrepancies.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the arrest and prosecution were supported by probable cause and, alternatively, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Diango failed to timely oppose the summary judgment motion and did not respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause warning that silence could lead to dismissal for abandonment/failure to prosecute.
- The Court concluded Diango abandoned the case and, alternatively, granted summary judgment for defendants on the merits because probable cause (and at minimum arguable probable cause) existed to arrest and prosecute.
- All federal claims dismissed; related state-law claims dismissed (and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction). The Court also certified any appeal would not be in good faith for IFP purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims should be dismissed for abandonment/failure to prosecute | Diango did not contest — no response filed | Defendants sought dismissal or summary judgment; Court warned plaintiff to show cause | Court dismissed action for abandonment/failure to prosecute |
| Whether officers lacked probable cause for arrest (false arrest / false imprisonment) | Diango contends arrest was wrongful | Officers argue tag and documentation gave probable cause to arrest for forgery | Court held probable cause existed; false arrest/imprisonment claims fail |
| Whether malicious prosecution claim is viable | Diango alleges malicious prosecution | Defendants argue prosecution was supported by probable cause | Court held malicious prosecution claim fails for lack of probable cause |
| Monell / municipal liability and state‑law claims | Diango asserts claims against City and under state law | City argues no underlying constitutional violation; federal claims fail; state claims duplicate federal ones | Court dismissed City claim (no underlying violation) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2000) (standards for probable cause to arrest)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (malicious prosecution requires lack of probable cause)
- Torraco v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 615 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010) (probable cause as defense to false arrest)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) (false arrest analysis applies similarly under § 1983)
- Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1991) (malicious prosecution principles)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity analysis)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962) (standard for good‑faith appeals / IFP appeals)