230 F. Supp. 3d 178
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- On July 1, 2014, Detectives Ahmetaj and John Doe went to Lumpkin and Lloyd’s Brooklyn apartment looking for Lloyd; they ordered Lumpkin to accompany them to the 13th Precinct and drove her there.
- At the stationhouse Lumpkin’s phone and shoes were taken; she was told she was not under arrest though she was, and Detective Brehm later handcuffed and detained her.
- Brehm ordered Lumpkin to call Lloyd and said Lumpkin would not be released until Lloyd came; Lumpkin was allegedly held for about nine hours and released only after promising to produce Lloyd, and was issued a desk appearance ticket.
- Lloyd went to the precinct on July 17, 2014, was arrested by Detective Ahmetaj, and was released the next day after the DA determined there was not probable cause.
- Lumpkin’s charge was eventually marked as not ready to proceed and later dismissed and sealed.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest (both plaintiffs) and excessive pretrial detention (Lumpkin). Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), relying on external exhibits the court declined to consider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (Lumpkin) | Lumpkin was confined without consent or probable cause; all four officers participated | Defendants contend exhibits show identity-fraud evidence establishing probable or arguable probable cause | Denied dismissal: pleadings do not show arguable probable cause; claim plausible |
| False arrest (Lloyd) | Lloyd was arrested by Ahmetaj and held ~15+ hours without probable cause | Defendants argue evidence establishes probable cause / qualified immunity | Denied dismissal: SAC does not establish arguable probable cause |
| Excessive pretrial detention (Lumpkin) | Lumpkin was detained ~9 hours to coerce production of her daughter; detention was unconstitutional under Russo framework | Defendants rely on McLaughlin (48-hour rule) and an exhibit disputing duration | Denied dismissal: McLaughlin 48-hour rule inapposite; Russo governs coercive detention claims and Lumpkin plausibly pleads a Russo violation |
| Consideration of external exhibits on Rule 12(b)(6) | Plaintiffs urge the court to ignore defendants’ out-of-complaint exhibits | Defendants ask court to treat attached exhibits to defendants’ declaration as integral or judicially noticeable | Held: Court refused to consider defendants’ extrinsic exhibits (not integral or for truth); limited review to SAC and its attached exhibits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility on its face)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (antitrust pleading standard; plausibility framework)
- Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554 (materials proper on Rule 12(b)(6): complaint, incorporated documents, judicial notice)
- Russo v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F.3d 196 (right to be free from sustained detention arising from officers’ suppression/mishandling of exculpatory evidence)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (48-hour rule for prompt judicial determination of probable cause)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (limits on constitutional deprivation from short detentions)
- Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84 (arguable probable cause and qualified immunity standard)
- Simpson v. City of New York, 793 F.3d 259 (false arrest defenses: probable cause or qualified immunity)