Urbina v. City of New York
672 F. App'x 52
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Wilfredo Urbina sued the City of New York and several NYPD officers under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and state law after he was attacked by a machete-wielding assailant following an encounter with police.
- Urbina alleges officers arrested his designated driver, ordered him to leave a friend’s apartment, directed him to walk in a particular direction, and then he was attacked after stopping at a bodega.
- District Court granted defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment (failure-to-protect), right-to-travel, and Monell claims.
- Urbina appealed, arguing (1) he was “constructively seized,” (2) his right to travel was violated, (3) officers failed to protect him from private violence, and (4) municipal liability should survive.
- Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(c) dismissal de novo, accepting complaint allegations as true and applying the Iqbal plausibility standard.
- Court affirmed: held Urbina was not seized, no travel-right violation, no plausible failure-to-protect claim, and no Monell liability where no underlying constitutional violation was plausibly alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment seizure | Urbina: officers’ commands placed him in "constructive custody" (not free to leave) | City: Urbina’s own allegations show he felt free to leave and walked away unrestrained | Affirmed — no seizure; reasonable person would have felt free to leave |
| Right to travel | Urbina: being ordered out of apartment and told which direction to walk infringed travel within state | City: orders were minor restrictions to disperse a volatile situation, not denial of travel | Affirmed — orders are minor restrictions, not a protected denial of travel |
| Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect | Urbina: officers’ directions exposed him to known danger or created the danger | City: no special relationship and no allegation officers created or increased the danger | Affirmed — neither special relationship nor creation of danger plausibly alleged |
| Monell municipal liability | Urbina: City liable for officers’ conduct | City: no underlying constitutional violation shown, so no Monell liability | Affirmed — Monell claim fails because no plausible constitutional deprivation alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for Rule 12(c) review)
- Bank of New York v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905 (2d Cir. 2010) (plausibility standard survives motion to dismiss/judgment on pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (seizure defined by physical force or show of authority)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (reasonable person standard for seizure)
- Salmon v. Blesser, 802 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2015) (directions to move do not necessarily constitute seizure)
- King v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 442 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1971) (right to travel within a state recognized)
- Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (right to travel does not guarantee access to particular places)
- Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2007) (minor travel restrictions are not denial of fundamental right)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no general duty to protect from private actors)
- Matican v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2008) (special-relationship and created-danger exceptions)
- Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1993) (created-danger theory explained)
- Lombardi v. Whitman, 485 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007) (special relationship typically requires custody or similar restraint)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation)