Jackson v. City of New York
939 F. Supp. 2d 235
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- March 7, 2009 incident at Pizza Plus in Queens involving Plaintiff Jackson and NYPD officers Johnston, Campo, Dammacco, Montesquieu, and others.
- Parties dispute whether Plaintiff was detained inside Pizza Plus or later outside, and whether any police action was justified.
- Plaintiff alleges unlawful seizure, false arrest, excessive force and handcuffing, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and state-law claims.
- Defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and asserting qualified immunity where applicable.
- Court analyzes both versions of events, focusing on Fourth Amendment seizure, arrest, and excessive force claims and related state-law claims.
- Court ultimately denies in part and grants in part Defendants’ motion, allowing some claims to proceed and dismissing others.
- Plaintiff withdraws spoliation claim, and certain state-law claims are dismissed for failure to name individuals per NY General Municipal Law 50-e.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to justify the stop outside Pizza Plus? | Plaintiff claims stop was unlawful seizure. | Dammacco relied on Johnston’s observations and backup call, creating suspicion. | No reasonable suspicion; unlawful seizure may proceed against Johnston, Campo, Dammacco. |
| Was there probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for the charges? | Arrest lacked probable cause; initial detention unlawful. | Probable cause existed or could be argued for some charges. | Dispute as to probable cause; false arrest/malicious prosecution claims survive against multiple officers. |
| Did Defendants commit malicious prosecution? | Prosecutions lacked probable cause and were pursued with malice. | Some charges lacked or had probable cause; others contested. | Malicious prosecution liability denied for some counts (criminal mischief fourth degree); others survive; facts disputed. |
| Are excessive force and unreasonable handcuffing qualifiedly immune? | Officers’ force and handcuffing were excessive and unlawful. | In light of resistance, force may be reasonable; qualified immunity may apply if probable cause existed. | No qualified immunity; material disputes remain; claims proceed. |
| Did failure to intervene render liability? | Sergeant Montesquieu and Officers Johnston/Campo failed to intervene. | Intervention not warranted given circumstances? | Failure-to-intervene claims survive against Johnston, Campo, Montesquieu. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (defines seizure under Fourth Amendment; totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1989) ( Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion)
- Colon v. City of New York, 250 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2001) (limits on reliance on fellow-officer reports)
- People v. Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583 (N.Y. 1991) (reliance on fellow officer reports; probable cause standard)
- Mack v. Town of Wallkill, 253 F.Supp.2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (backup observations not sufficient for probable cause)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive force evaluation; objective reasonableness)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (self-defense and lack of probable cause in malicious prosecution context)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) (probable cause standard for false arrest)
- Posr v. Court Officer Shield No. 207, 180 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999) (explanation of Arguable probable cause)
- Mejia v. City of New York, 119 F.Supp.2d 232 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (timing of probable cause in malicious prosecutions)