Smith v. Whitesboro Police Department
6:24-cv-00828
N.D.N.Y.May 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Wayne R. Smith, proceeding pro se, alleges excessive force and failure to protect during his arrest on April 5, 2024, by Whitesboro police officers after fleeing a motor vehicle accident.
- The original complaint named the Whitesboro Police Department and three officers; the amended complaint added civilian David Webb and Officer David Morrissey, and removed the department.
- Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which was eventually granted after initial procedural deficiencies.
- Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that the excessive force and failure to protect claims against the four officer defendants survive initial review, but that claims against Defendant Webb be dismissed as he was not acting under color of state law.
- The District Judge agreed largely with the magistrate, but concluded Plaintiff’s common law battery claim against Webb should survive because the complaint alleges physical contact by Webb during the arrest that is sufficiently related to the federal claims.
- The court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Section 1983 claims against Webb, while the federal and common law claims against all remaining defendants proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force by officers | Officers beat Smith during arrest | Not clear at this stage | Survives initial review; requires response |
| Failure to protect by officers | Officers failed to stop use of excessive force | Not clear at this stage | Survives initial review; requires response |
| Section 1983 claim against Webb (civilian) | Webb physically assaulted Smith during arrest | Webb not acting under color of state law | Dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend granted |
| Common law battery claim against Webb | Webb’s physical actions constitute battery under NY law | — | Survives initial review; requires response |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
- Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) (courts must construe pro se complaints to raise strongest possible arguments)
- Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) ("under color of state law" requires willful participation in joint activity with state or its agents)