Holmes v. City of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-10628
StatusUnknown

This text of Holmes v. City of New York (Holmes v. City of New York) 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
Holmes v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STANLEY HOLMES, Plaintiff, 21-CV-10628 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sues the City of New York, alleging that his New York County conviction for criminal possession of a weapon was overturned on appeal, and that those charges were eventually dismissed. By order dated January 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if 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. BACKGROUND On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff Stanley Holmes was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He was sentenced, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years’ to life imprisonment.2 See People v. Holmes, 170 A.D.3d 532 (2019).

On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the conviction. Id. The Appellate Division held that the court erred at the suppression hearing in holding that defendant Holmes lacked standing to move to suppress evidence of the pistol because it was recovered from the ground. The Appellate Division First Department remanded the matter for a

2 According to public records of the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision, Plaintiff is currently serving a sentence of 16 years’ to life imprisonment for a 2016 conviction on charges of burglary and bail jumping, both in the second degree. determination of an issue that had been raised at the suppression hearing but not addressed – that is, whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Holmes. The Appellate Division further held that the trial court had improperly precluded defense counsel from cross-examining the eyewitness police officer about allegations previously raised in

a federal civil rights action against that officer. According to the Appellate Division, the trial court had not provided any justification (such as the potential for jury confusion), for its exercise of discretion to preclude cross-examination about previous bad acts by the police officer. Because the error was not harmless, the Appellate Division ordered a new trial – the fourth trial on these charges. Plaintiff brings this suit for damages against the City of New York, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s factual allegations, in their entirety, are as follows:

I was arrested for C.P.W. 2nd degree, resulted from a car stop. I had four criminal trials dealing with this case. Four Appellate Judges agree[d] this case should have been reversed. As a result, the criminal possession of a weapon [charge] has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 14, 2021. (Compl., ECF 2 at 4.) DISCUSSION A. Claims Against City of New York When a plaintiff sues a municipality under section 1983, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipality’s employees or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The plaintiff must show that the municipality itself caused the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“A municipality or other local government may be liable under this section [1983] if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation.”) quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978)); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 2011))). In other words, to state a section 1983 claim against a municipality, such as the City of New York, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a violation of his constitutional rights and, to

support the claim against the municipality, (1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (internal citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations that criminal charges against him were ultimately dismissed are insufficient to show how a policy, custom, or practice of the City of New York caused a violation of his rights. Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to plead facts showing that a policy, custom, or practice of the City of New York caused a violation of his federal civil rights. B. Potential Claims Arising From Arrest The mere fact that a conviction is reversed, or that someone is arrested but ultimately not

convicted, does not in itself mean that a police officer’s arrest of the individual was unlawful.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Devenpeck v. Alford
543 U.S. 146 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Liranzo v. United States
690 F.3d 78 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Rheingold v. Harrison Town Police Department
568 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D. New York, 2008)
Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Bernard v. United States
25 F.3d 98 (Second Circuit, 1994)
Weyant v. Okst
101 F.3d 845 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Holmes v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2022.