222 F. Supp. 3d 341
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- On May 7, 2015, NYPD officers responded to a 911 report of a Black male (approx. 5'8", black sweatshirt and sweatpants) with a gun near Amsterdam Houses; they encountered Jonathan Harris near that area.
- Officers patted down Harris, found nothing on him, then inspected a jacket hanging 10–15 feet away on a fence and recovered a green-handled scalpel; Harris denied owning the jacket or scalpel.
- Harris was arrested for criminal possession of a weapon (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1)), photographed, detained for hours, issued a desk appearance ticket, and later prosecution was declined by the DA because the scalpel was not a statutorily covered weapon.
- Harris sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful stop-and-frisk, false arrest, fabrication/denial of fair trial, failure to intervene, and bias-based profiling; the City and three named officers moved for partial summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and lack of municipal liability; defendants also moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
- The court limited the pre-answer qualified-immunity record to Harris’s complaint and deposition, declined to consider the officers’ investigatory reports and other police-submitted materials, and denied the failure-to-prosecute dismissal.
- Applying the plaintiff’s version of events, the court concluded there was neither actual nor arguable probable cause to arrest Harris and that factual disputes exist on fabrication of evidence and Monell theories; the court denied defendants’ motions without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) | Harris lawfully invoked Fifth Amendment at deposition; that is not failure to prosecute | Defendants argued invocation shows refusal to cooperate and justifies dismissal | Denied — invoking privilege is not failure to prosecute; defendants did not meet 41(b) standards |
| Qualified immunity for false arrest | No probable cause: scalpel found in a jacket not worn by Harris; he denied ownership; DA declined prosecution | Officers argued facts (e.g., gang indicators, photos) justify at least arguable probable cause | Denied — on plaintiff’s version there was neither actual nor arguable probable cause; qualified immunity not available at this pre-answer stage |
| Qualified immunity for denial of fair trial (fabrication) | Officers fabricated evidence by asserting scalpel belonged to Harris and forwarded that to prosecutors, causing deprivation of liberty | Defendants relied on post-arrest investigative material to justify statements to prosecutors | Denied — factual dispute exists; no reasonable officer could have believed fabrication was permissible given record before the court |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | City failed to train/supervise; pattern/custom could explain wrongful arrest/fabrication | City argued no primary constitutional violation, so Monell claim fails | Denied — because primary claims survive, Monell claim may proceed and discovery is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity inquiry)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permitting courts to decide qualified-immunity sequence flexibly)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (fabrication-of-evidence claim violates due process)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (fabricated evidence forwarded to prosecutors supports § 1983 fair-trial claim)
- Jenkins v. City of N.Y., 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (clarifies "arguable" probable cause standard)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness for qualified immunity)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or practice)