Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department

Background

Saul Sabino, who was representing himself, sued the Port Authority Police Department of New York and New Jersey and the New York County District Attorney’s Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of New York. In an earlier order, the court dismissed the claims against the District Attorney’s Office and several claims against the police department, and directed Sabino to identify certain police defendants. Officers Joffre G. Cortez and John-Patrick Natiku were later added.

Sabino filed second and third amended complaints, which Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses treated as requests for permission to amend. He sought to add Marshalls of New York and its employee, Vincent Johnson, as defendants. He also sought to add claims against the existing defendants for false arrest, malicious prosecution, equal protection, and state-law assault and battery.

Proposed Marshalls and Johnson Claims

The court denied Sabino’s request to add Marshalls and Johnson as defendants. Under the case schedule, amendment after the deadline required good cause, meaning a sufficient justification for changing the schedule. The court found that Sabino knew about Marshalls and Johnson from the beginning of the case and did not explain why he could not have added them sooner.

The court also found that the proposed claims against Marshalls and Johnson would be futile. Sabino did not allege that they acted under color of state law, so the proposed claims did not arise under § 1983. He also identified no other federal statute that would give the court jurisdiction over those claims. In addition, the court stated that Sabino’s concessions that he shoplifted and displayed a hammer supplied the factual basis for his Fourth Amendment and state-law claims, but those facts established probable cause for his arrest and defeated those claims.

Proposed Claims Against Existing Defendants

The court denied leave to add a false-arrest claim because that claim had already been dismissed with prejudice in an earlier round of this case. The court also reiterated that probable cause is a complete defense to false arrest. Based on Sabino’s admissions that he shoplifted, brandished a hammer, and fled from Marshalls security personnel and the police, the court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest him.

The court denied leave to add a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim. It held that a guilty plea is not a favorable termination of the criminal case for this type of claim. Sabino pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, even though the prosecution dismissed the two other charges. The court concluded that the prosecution therefore ended with a conviction for malicious-prosecution purposes.

The court denied leave to add an equal-protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Sabino did not provide factual allegations showing that he was treated differently from similarly situated people or that the defendants acted with a discriminatory purpose.

The court granted leave to add state-law assault-and-battery claims. It found that Sabino’s allegations that officers assaulted him while he was handcuffed and caused injuries requiring medical treatment were sufficient to support an excessive-force claim, and that state-law assault and battery could be pursued alongside that claim. The court also found that adding these claims would not require additional discovery or delay the case, and directed the existing defendants to respond.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl granted in part and denied in part Sabino’s motion for leave to amend. The court denied adding Marshalls and Johnson and denied the proposed false-arrest, malicious-prosecution, and equal-protection claims. It granted the request to add state-law assault-and-battery claims against the existing defendants.