Quezada v. Bakraqi
1:15-cv-10105
S.D.N.Y.Sep 6, 2017Background
- On January 19, 2013, Quezada was observed with a woman (Casella) and William Davis in a Bronx high‑drug‑activity area; shortly after, Davis was found with cocaine and said Quezada had offered him cocaine and suboxone.
- Officer Demkiw radioed colleagues that he observed a hand‑to‑hand transaction; officers stopped Quezada minutes later and found an orange filmy suboxone film in a plastic bag on his person; Quezada was arrested and charged with sale and possession offenses.
- Bakraqi signed the criminal complaint; the charges were dismissed on May 1, 2013 (reason not in record).
- Quezada (pro se) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of medical care, unlawful strip search, excessive force (handcuffs), and alleged racial profiling; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The magistrate judge found probable cause (and at minimum arguable probable cause), rejected Quezada’s insufficient evidence of a prescription shown at arrest, and recommended granting summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / Probable cause | Quezada says he did not give Davis anything and had a valid suboxone prescription, so no probable cause | Officers had eyewitness observation (Demkiw), Davis’s statement implicating Quezada, drugs recovered from Davis, and suboxone on Quezada | Probable cause existed (and alternatively arguable probable cause); summary judgment for defendants on false arrest |
| Qualified immunity | Not argued separately by plaintiff | Even if no probable cause, officers reasonably relied on information and are entitled to immunity | Officers entitled to qualified immunity because their reliance was objectively reasonable |
| Malicious prosecution (initiation, probable cause, malice) | Quezada contends prosecution was groundless because suboxone was prescribed and thus charges lacked basis | Bakraqi signed complaint based on officers’ observations; probable cause (or arguable probable cause) existed; no evidence of intervening facts or malice | No triable issue: prosecution was supported by probable/arguable probable cause and malice cannot be inferred; summary judgment for defendants |
| Remaining claims (strip search, denial of medical care, excessive force, equal protection) | Claimed strip search, delay in receiving suboxone causing withdrawal, wrist abrasions from handcuffs, and racial targeting | Plaintiff produced no specific evidence of search scope/conditions, serious medical harm, more than de minimis cuff injuries, or discriminatory intent | Insufficient evidence as to scope/seriousness/malice; summary judgment recommended on these claims as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149 (probable cause assessment; inferences to be drawn for summary judgment)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (elements of false arrest under § 1983 and New York law)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (acquittal or dismissal does not negate probable cause at time of arrest)
- Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737 (arguable probable cause / qualified immunity standard)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (officer not required to eliminate every plausible claim of innocence before arrest)
- Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (fruits of an unlawful search may still be considered in § 1983 probable cause analysis)