Dorsainvil v. The City of New York, 1:19-cv-02323

Background

On Oct. 9, 2014 Joery Dorsainvil was arrested for an Oct. 5, 2014 shooting; Detectives Gerlick and Morra were the arresting/investigating officers.
Dorsainvil alleges Morra fabricated a confession and both detectives forwarded false information to prosecutors; the victim was allegedly unable to identify him and testified at trial that he never told detectives Dorsainvil shot him.
Criminal charges were dismissed and sealed on Apr. 22, 2016; Dorsainvil sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, denial of a fair trial, substantive due process (reckless investigation), and Monell municipal-liability theories.
Defendants moved to partially dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, arguing (inter alia) that false arrest/imprisonment claims are time‑barred, substantive‑due‑process reckless‑investigation claims are foreclosed by the Fourth Amendment, and Monell claims are conclusory.
Dorsainvil sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to split and expand several claims (substantive due process, Monell failure to train/supervise, fair‑trial claims) and later sought to supplement/withdraw; Magistrate Judge Gold recommends denying leave to amend/supplement/withdraw as futile.
If adopted, the R&R would dismiss Counts One (false arrest), Two (false imprisonment), Three (substantive due process reckless investigation), and Five (Monell) of the Third Amended Complaint; remaining claims would include malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, and fair‑trial claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Dorsainvil plead substantive‑due‑process reckless‑investigation claims?	Dorsainvil sought to split and plead individual substantive‑due‑process counts for each detective based on alleged fabrication and reckless investigation.	Defendants: the alleged conduct is governed by the Fourth Amendment (not substantive due process) and is time‑barred.	Denied as futile: Fourth Amendment governs unlawful‑arrest/detention claims (Manuel), so substantive‑due‑process counts impermissible.
Are the proposed Monell failure‑to‑train and failure‑to‑supervise claims adequately pleaded?	Dorsainvil alleges the City failed to train/supervise officers regarding fabrication and verification of evidence; submitted public police records to show pattern.	Defendants: allegations are conclusory, lack identifiable training deficiency or pattern, and fail to plead deliberate indifference.	Denied as futile: pleadings lack specific facts showing a training/supervision deficiency, pattern of misconduct, or deliberate indifference (Monell/City of Canton).
Are the amended fair‑trial claims (including a New York Constitution/procedural‑due‑process variant) permissible?	Dorsainvil split his fair‑trial allegations and added a state‑constitutional/procedural‑due‑process variant to “clarify” claims.	Defendants contend amendment is unnecessary, dilatory, and prejudicial.	Partly: The federal fair‑trial claim is plausible but duplicative of existing claims; leave to amend to recast those claims is denied as needless. The New York Constitution variant is futile because no private cause of action exists there for claims remediable under § 1983; procedural‑due‑process variant also futile.
Is Dorsainvil’s proposed supplemental false‑arrest/false‑imprisonment claim timely (accrual question)?	Dorsainvil argues Wallace has been superseded and accrual should not occur until criminal dismissal.	Defendants: false‑arrest/imprisonment accrues at arraignment/bound‑over; claims are time‑barred.	Denied as futile: Wallace controls—false‑arrest/imprisonment claims accrue at arraignment, so these claims are untimely.

Key Cases Cited

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors supporting denial of leave to amend: futility, bad faith, undue delay, prejudice)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; complaint must permit plausible inference of liability)
Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (amendment is futile if proposed claim could not survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (Fourth Amendment governs claims challenging pretrial detention based on false evidence)
McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019) (fabricated‑evidence/fair‑trial claim accrues only after criminal proceedings terminate in favor of the accused)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (false‑arrest/false‑imprisonment claims accrue at arraignment/bound‑over)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference causing constitutional violation)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (failure‑to‑train standard requires identifiable deficiency closely related to injury and deliberate indifference)
Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (factors for Monell liability via inadequate training/supervision)