246 F. Supp. 3d 704
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Alyssa Lloyd, a recovering breast cancer patient who had recent reconstructive surgery with fragile chest sutures and ongoing saline leakage, was arrested in a NYPD undercover "buy-and-bust" operation on Sept. 20, 2013.
- Officers forcibly breached the apartment door; Sergeant Gregory Graves pushed Lloyd to the floor after entry; Lloyd says the push ripped chest sutures and aggravated her wound; officers contend she obstructed entry.
- After the push Lloyd was rear handcuffed; officers used double-linked (rear) handcuffs and she repeatedly requested front cuffing or medical care; she was offered hospital treatment multiple times but declined to go, allegedly to avoid delaying processing and a scheduled surgery.
- Lloyd was processed, transported to Central Booking and then Rikers Island; Rikers physicians examined her, prescribed antibiotics and wound care, and she received daily treatment thereafter; she missed a scheduled reconstructive surgery and later required removal of an infected expander.
- Procedural posture: City defendants (several officers and the City) and Dr. Alam moved for summary judgment on § 1983 claims (excessive force, deliberate indifference), ADA/RA claims, Monell, and state tort claims; the Court denied summary judgment on excessive force (push and rear double handcuffing) and ADA/RA and Monell theories in part, but granted summary judgment on deliberate indifference claims against City and Dr. Alam and on several state tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers were deliberately indifferent to Lloyd’s serious medical needs (Fourteenth Amendment) | Lloyd says officers ignored or delayed necessary care and gave misleading assurances that caused her to decline hospital treatment | City and Dr. Alam assert they offered treatment, prescribed antibiotics/dressing changes, and any delay was not constitutional deliberate indifference | Summary judgment granted to City and Dr. Alam: no deliberate indifference because treatment was offered and any delay/omission did not show officials "knew or should have known" of an excessive risk under Darnell standard |
| Whether Sergeant Graves used excessive force by pushing Lloyd to the ground during entry (Fourth Amendment) | Push knocked Lloyd down, ripped sutures and aggravated her wound; she was compliant and UC 137 was in plain view | Graves contends the push was reasonable given safety concerns and argues de minimis force or qualified immunity | Summary judgment denied for Graves on excessive force and qualified immunity because material facts (e.g., whether Lloyd obstructed entry, visibility of undercover, circumstances of the push) are disputed and reasonableness is fact-specific |
| Whether Detectives Mills and Byrne used excessive force by restraining Lloyd in rear double-linked handcuffs for hours | Rear double cuffing exacerbated chest injury; Lloyd repeatedly complained and was ignored | Detectives say they used double cuffs as an accommodation and did not know cuffs exacerbated her wound; qualified immunity argued | Summary judgment denied as to Mills and Byrne: factual disputes about what officers knew and duration/effect of rear cuffing preclude resolving reasonableness or qualified immunity on summary judgment |
| Whether UC 137 failed to intervene to stop Graves’ push | Lloyd faults UC 137 for not preventing the push | UC 137 says he had no realistic opportunity to intervene during the rapid entry | Summary judgment for UC 137: under Lloyd’s version the entry and push were rapid and UC 137 had no realistic opportunity to intercede |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness for excessive force)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (objective reasonableness for qualified immunity)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (objective standard for pretrial detainee excessive force claims relied on by Darnell)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.) (clarifying mens rea for pretrial-detainee deliberate indifference claims)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (negligence/medical malpractice vs. constitutional deliberate indifference)