Rodriguez v. Grullon NYC 311
1:19-cv-01526
E.D.N.YSep 3, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Edgardo Rodriguez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from post‑sentencing custody.
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty in New York state court and received a 24‑month sentence that he alleges was time‑served; he was then indicted in federal court, pleaded guilty to a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, and received a 72‑month federal sentence.
- After federal sentencing, Rodriguez was returned to state custody from December 12, 2017 until approximately August 27, 2018 (about eight months); BOP later determined that this state custody did not count toward his federal sentence.
- Rodriguez’s second amended complaint named the City of New York and “Grullon NYC 311,” and also included an allegation against an unnamed "OBCC John Doe" jail official responsible for calculating his state release date.
- The court previously dismissed earlier complaints with leave to amend; here it dismissed claims against the City and Grullon for failure to state a Monell or personal‑involvement claim, but allowed the John Doe claim for alleged detention beyond the maximum term to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability (City of New York) | City responsible for unconstitutional detention through policy/custom | No facts alleging any official policy or custom causing the injury | Dismissed for failure to allege Monell policy or custom |
| Personal involvement of “Grullon NYC 311” | Grullon/311 personally involved in OBCC decisions | No plausible allegations of Grullon’s personal involvement | Dismissed for lack of personal involvement |
| Prolonged post‑sentence detention (Due Process / Eighth Amendment) | Rodriguez was detained ~8 months beyond his state maximum term, violating due process and possibly Eighth Amendment | BOP determined state custody does not credit federal sentence; defendants dispute entitlement to relief | Claim against the unnamed OBCC official may proceed (liberty interest implicated; potential Eighth Amendment harm) |
| Identification / service of John Doe (Valentin) | Requests court order to identify the jail official who miscalculated release date | City/State will identify but are not required to defend/indemnify the individual at this stage | Court directed Attorney General and Corporation Counsel to ascertain and provide the John Doe’s identity within 45 days per Valentin |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2008) (government liability flows from official policies causing constitutional violations)
- Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2010) (personal involvement required for § 1983 damages)
- Francis v. Fiacco, 942 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (due process applies to officials’ interpretation/implementation of sentences)
- Calhoun v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole Officers, 999 F.2d 647 (2d Cir. 1993) (inmate has liberty interest in release at sentence expiration)
- Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989) (Eighth Amendment may be violated by prolonged detention beyond expiration)
- Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997) (court may order government to identify John Doe defendants for service)