Pluma v. City of New York
686 F. App'x 66
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Pluma alleged excessive force by NYPD officers during an Occupy Wall Street incident in Zucotti Park, claiming officers’ actions (including use of pepper spray and handling of barricades) caused his injuries.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants after reviewing video recordings of the incident.
- Pluma appealed, challenging the district court’s consideration of videos and its merits ruling.
- Defendants included individual officers and the City of New York; officers asserted qualified immunity for federal claims.
- The Second Circuit considered whether the district court could rely on certain videos and whether qualified immunity or municipal liability applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could consider video evidence on Rule 12(c) motion | District court should not have considered complete videos beyond stills included in complaint | Videos were properly considered because complaint included stills and videos were integral | Court need not decide broadly; Pluma failed to adequately object to consideration of Exhibits F, G, L, so court could consider them |
| Whether individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity for federal excessive-force claims | Force and pepper spray use were unreasonable and violated clearly established law | Officers reasonably believed their actions (securing barricade, using pepper spray when barrier posed threat) were lawful | Officers entitled to qualified immunity — it was objectively reasonable under chaotic conditions to control barricade and deploy pepper spray |
| Whether the City can be liable under § 1983 | City’s policies or customs caused the injury | Qualified immunity does not apply to the City; municipal liability requires an unlawful policy/custom | City not liable: Pluma did not plausibly allege an illegal city policy or custom causing his injuries |
| Disposition of state-law claims after federal claims dismissed | State claims dismissed on merits by district court because force was reasonable | Defendants urged dismissal along with federal claims | Federal dismissal affirmed on different ground; district court’s dismissal of state claims vacated and remanded for pendent-jurisdiction determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(c) motion equals Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2014) (court may reject complaint allegations contradicted by video evidence)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
- Skehan v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 465 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (qualified immunity applies to individuals, not municipalities)
- Askins v. Doe No. 1, 727 F.3d 248 (2d Cir. 2013) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a municipal policy or custom causing injury)
- Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Board of Trade of City of New York, 464 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2006) (when federal claims are eliminated early, courts generally should decline pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims)