Keith v. Mahar
5:24-cv-01391
N.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- David Keith filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Syracuse police officers and a sergeant, alleging constitutional violations during and after an encounter at his daughter's school.
- Keith claimed he was unlawfully detained, arrested, placed in handcuffs, and denied appropriate medical care while peacefully protesting his daughter's treatment for bullying at school.
- Police officers detained Keith based on allegations of threats but continued to hold him after learning he had not committed any crime.
- Keith further alleged police unlawfully entered his home and transported his daughter for psychiatric evaluation without his consent.
- Magistrate Judge Katz reviewed the amended complaint and recommended that some claims survive and others be dismissed, prompting Keith to file an amended complaint and later a second (stricken) amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claims on behalf of minor daughter | Keith claimed violations on behalf of his minor daughter. | Non-attorney cannot represent minor | Claims for minor daughter dismissed unless brought by licensed attorney; D.K. removed as plaintiff. |
| First Amendment Retaliation | Detention on Nov 17, 2021 was retaliation for Oct 9, 2021 speech. | Claim untimely; no causal nexus | Dismissal was clear error; claim was timely filed and temporal proximity exists. Retaliation claim survives. |
| Failure to Supervise (Sergeant Tucker) | Tucker allowed detention/interview to occur knowing no crime was committed. | Conclusory allegations, no conduct | Dismissed for lack of personal involvement with leave to amend; no specific misconduct alleged against Tucker. |
| Fourteenth Amendment Due Process | Detention continued after officers knew no crime was committed. | Conduct arises under Fourth Amend. | Due process claims dismissed with prejudice as the conduct is properly addressed under Fourth Amendment frameworks (unlawful arrest/detention). |
| Improper Filing of Second Amended Complaint | Sought to amend further. | - | Second amended complaint stricken as improperly filed without court permission or consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berrios v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (pro se litigant may not represent minor child)
- Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2015) (§ 1983 claims accrue when all elements are present)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (personal involvement needed for constitutional liability under § 1983)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity can support inference of causation in retaliation claims)
- Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (substantive due process unavailable where specific constitutional provision applies)