96 F. Supp. 3d 7
E.D.N.Y.2015Background
- On May 20, 2012 Demetrios Forney called 911 alleging his half‑brother Alfonzo Forney threatened him and was producing/storing counterfeit bills in their shared apartment; officers Soto and Arrindell responded.
- Demetrios showed officers counterfeit bills and pointed out a plastic container in Alfonzo’s room; officers searched the room and seized the container.
- Alfonzo was arrested the same day (charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument and harassment) and jailed until August 27, 2012; the Kings County court suppressed the seized evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The federal district court for New Jersey later found Alfonzo violated supervised‑release conditions; he received an 18‑month sentence.
- Alfonzo sued (pro se) in E.D.N.Y. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful search and seizure, failure to intervene, Monell municipal liability, and state tort claims; city‑employee defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court granted dismissal in full: all § 1983 claims dismissed (including failure to intervene and Monell), state claims dismissed for untimely notice of claim, and private actor Demetrios dismissed for lack of color‑of‑state‑law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / malicious prosecution / Monell municipal liability | Alfonzo alleges arrest and prosecution flowed from unlawful police conduct. | Officers had probable cause based on Demetrios’s complaint and presented counterfeit bills; plaintiff abandoned these claims by not opposing. | Dismissed (deemed abandoned; alternatively, probable cause existed). |
| Unlawful search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) | Officers unlawfully searched room and seized container of counterfeit bills without consent. | Alfonzo was on supervised release subject to a search condition; officers had reasonable suspicion after the 911 call and Demetrios’s presentation of bills. | Dismissed — reasonable suspicion justified the search given supervised‑release status. |
| Failure to intervene (against supervising officers) | Supervisors failed to stop unlawful search/seizure/arrest. | No underlying constitutional violation remains; thus no failure‑to‑intervene claim. | Dismissed as derivative of dismissed primary § 1983 claims. |
| New York state tort claims (e.g., against officers) | State torts alleged based on same events. | Plaintiff failed to timely serve a notice of claim (served >90 days after incident). | Dismissed for failure to comply with N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50‑e (untimely notice). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 668 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees/supervised‑releasees have diminished privacy; suspicionless searches of parolees permitted)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationer subject to search condition may be searched on reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004) (supervised release, parole, probation lie on a privacy‑expectation continuum)
- Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (court must accept factual allegations as true and draw inferences in plaintiff’s favor on motion to dismiss)