Harris v. Denully

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 8, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-01307
StatusUnknown

This text of Harris v. Denully (Harris v. Denully) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Denully, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LAQUAN DEVOTA HARRIS, Plaintiff, 20-CV-1307 (LLS) -against- ORDERTO AMEND SHANE DENULLY, et al., Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution, arising out of a November 7, 2018 arrest on a New York City subway travelling through Manhattan. By order dated April 7, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is,in forma pauperis.For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude”in pro se cases,id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim,pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S.at 555.After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible –not merely possible –that the pleader is

entitled to relief.Id. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaint: On November 7, 2018, while Plaintiff was travelling on a New York City subway car, four NewYork City Transit Police Officers arrested him on several weapons charges. Defendant “Officer Guilford refused to let Plaintiff off the train” while the other defendant-officers arrested him. (ECF No. 1, at 5.) Plaintiff contends that he did not criminally possess the weapons but instead “was recording himself mak[ing] a fr[iend]ly video on [his] cellphone.” (Id.) He names as defendants Officers Shane Denully, Michael Hernandez, Christopher Guadino, and Gilford Gittens. He seeks injunctive relief and moneydamages. DISCUSSION A claim for false arrest under §1983 incorporates the elements of a false arrest claim under state law. See Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2003). To establish a false arrest claim under New York law, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant intended to confine [the plaintiff], (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not

consent to the confinement and (4)the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 95 (2d Cir. 2012). An arrest is privileged if it is based on probable cause. Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 84 (2d Cir. 2007) (“The existence of probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and is a complete defense to an action for false arrest.”) (quoting Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege facts showing: (1)that the defendant initiated or continued a prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant lacked probable cause to commence the proceeding or believe the proceeding could succeed; (3) that the defendant acted with malice; and (4)that the prosecution was terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. See Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2002). Moreover, “a plaintiff

asserting a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 must . . . show that the underlying criminal proceeding ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence.” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). Plaintiff fails to state a false arrest or malicious prosecution claim because he does not plead any facts suggesting that the arresting officers violated any of his rights during the arrest or that his criminal proceeding ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to file anamended complaint to state facts in support of his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants. To the greatest extent possible, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint must: a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons; b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s case including what each defendant did or failed to do; c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date andtime of each relevant event; d) give the location where each relevant event occurred; e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights and describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Alvin Fulton Jr. v. Laurie Robinson
289 F.3d 188 (Second Circuit, 2002)
Liranzo v. United States
690 F.3d 78 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Weyant v. Okst
101 F.3d 845 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Boyd v. City of New York
336 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Lanning v. City of Glens Falls
908 F.3d 19 (Second Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harris v. Denully, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-denully-nysd-2020.