1:17-cv-06062
E.D.N.YMar 12, 2019Background
- On April 13, 2015, NYPD Officers Yahaira Llano and Jean Prinston approached Malik McLeod; Llano struck McLeod once in the face while McLeod was retrieving ID. McLeod suffered pain and bruising.
- Prinston allegedly observed Llano’s hostility and readying of a punch but did not intervene and later gave allegedly false statements exculpating Llano. McLeod pled guilty to disorderly conduct at arraignment.
- McLeod sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (1) excessive force (against Llano), (2) failure to intervene (Prinston), (3) supervisory liability/failure to supervise (Lt. Madhu), and (4) Monell municipal liability (City). Llano asserted a third-party indemnification claim against the City under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-k.
- The City (representing Prinston and Madhu) moved to dismiss the failure to intervene, supervisory, and Monell claims. The City also moved to dismiss Llano’s indemnification claim. The court treated the complaint as the plaintiff’s last and best pleading.
- The court dismissed McLeod’s failure-to-intervene claim against Prinston and supervisory/ failure-to-supervise claims against Lt. Madhu and dismissed the Monell claim against the City. The court retained supplemental jurisdiction over Llano’s third-party indemnification claim and denied the City’s motion to dismiss that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to intervene (Prinston) | Prinston observed Llano’s growing hostility and the arm cocking, so had opportunity to stop the assault | The assault was a single, sudden punch taking seconds; Prinston had no realistic opportunity to intercede | Dismissed — single, rapid punch too sudden to give realistic opportunity to intervene |
| Supervisory liability (Lt. Madhu) | Madhu was told McLeod was punched and knew or should have known of Llano’s propensity for violence; failed to investigate or remedy | Allegations are conclusory; no facts showing personal involvement, gross negligence, or deliberate indifference to ongoing violations | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead personal involvement, gross negligence, or deliberate indifference |
| Monell municipal liability (City) | City had a widespread practice of covering up misconduct and failed to train/supervise; cites reports (Mollen, CCPC) | Single incident + generalized reports are insufficient; plaintiff must plead pattern, specific training deficiency, and causal link | Dismissed — complaint fails to plausibly plead a municipal custom, policy, or failure-to-train showing deliberate indifference |
| Indemnification (Llano’s third-party § 50-k claim) | Indemnification claim is tightly related to the federal claims; denying it would force later duplicate state litigation | City urged declining supplemental jurisdiction and argued ripeness concerns and that state courts should decide indemnification procedure | Denied — court exercises supplemental jurisdiction and retains Llano’s indemnification claim for judicial economy; indemnification merits / ripeness to be revisited after liability determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (establishes affirmative duty of officers to intervene)
- Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure-to-intervene standard: officer liable if he observed excessive force or had reason to know and a realistic opportunity to intervene)
- O'Neill v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1988) (rapid succession of blows can negate realistic opportunity to intervene)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (failure-to-train standard requires deliberate indifference causing constitutional violations)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (deliberate indifference requires proof that policymakers disregarded a known or obvious consequence)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)