Karina Garcia v. Michael R. Bloomberg
662 F. App'x 50
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs were among ~700 marchers arrested by NYPD during an October 2011 Occupy Wall Street march that entered the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. Plaintiffs sued city and individual NYPD officials alleging false arrest and Monell municipal liability.
- This appeal challenges the district court’s denial of leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding factual allegations (from depositions/video) that certain supervisors (Esposito, Purtell, Commissioner Kelly) knew marchers believed they were permitted to march and thus there was no probable cause.
- Plaintiffs alleged: (1) Chief Esposito was on-scene and knew many marchers did not hear dispersal orders but ordered arrests anyway; (2) officers’ conduct implicitly permitted marching on the roadway; (3) supervisors negligently failed to use alternative crowd-control tactics; and (4) a de facto City/NYPD policy of escorting unpermitted marches then mass-arresting participants.
- This Court had previously decided (Garcia III) that arresting officers had probable cause and were entitled to qualified immunity for the arrests; the present motion sought to add allegations intended to vitiate that probable-cause finding.
- The Second Circuit reviewed denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and, reviewing legal futility de novo, concluded the new allegations did not plausibly show lack of probable cause or a Monell violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed allegations show no probable cause for arrests under N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20(5) | Plaintiffs: Esposito knew many marchers lacked intent to block traffic; officers’ conduct implicitly permitted roadway march, so arrests lacked probable cause | Defendants: Officers had sufficient observations to conclude marchers obstructed traffic; probable cause exists despite disputed intent | Held: Denied — proposed allegations do not plausibly negate probable cause; prior conclusion in Garcia III stands |
| Whether Monell claim can proceed if individual arrests were lawful | Plaintiffs: City/NYPD policies/customs (escorting unpermitted marches then abruptly arresting) caused constitutional injury | Defendants: Municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation; none here | Held: Denied — because arrests were supported by probable cause, Monell claims fail |
| Whether supervisor conduct (Esposito/Kelly) can support § 1983 claims | Plaintiffs: Esposito acted (or failed to act) as policymaker and Kelly failed to supervise, creating liability | Defendants: Allegations at most assert negligence or tactical error, not deliberate policy or constitutional violation | Held: Denied — negligence or tactical mistakes insufficient for Monell; no constitutional violation shown |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15 | Plaintiffs: New factual allegations warrant amendment | Defendants: Amendment would be futile because allegations cannot overcome prior probable-cause findings | Held: Denied (no abuse of discretion) — amendment would be futile on probable-cause/Monell grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom that causes a constitutional violation)
- Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2015) (prior panel held arresting officers had probable cause and qualified immunity for the bridge arrests)
- United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., 824 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Stansbury v. Wertman, 721 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2013) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
- Ackerson v. City of White Plains, 702 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (probable cause is a complete defense to false arrest under New York law)