Brock v. CVS Corporation

Background

Terrell K. Brock, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against CVS Corporation, CVS manager Leonardo Coronado, CVS employee Ashley Camacho, the City of White Plains, and several White Plains police officers. The fourth amended complaint, read broadly, alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to intervene under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and New York law.

The claims arose from two arrests. On April 3, 2020, police arrested Brock for criminal mischief after John Stewart reported that Brock had thrown a rock through an apartment window. Stewart identified Brock in surveillance photographs, and officers located and identified Brock nearby. Brock admitted staying at Stewart’s home and being asked to leave but denied breaking the window. Brock was issued a desk appearance ticket and released after about fifteen to twenty minutes.

On April 13, 2020, police responded to a reported ShopRite theft. A ShopRite employee provided a description, video footage, and a sworn statement. Officers later saw Brock near a CVS store wearing clothing matching the description. While Brock was detained, CVS manager Leonardo Coronado reported a separate alleged CVS theft, identified Brock, and provided video footage and a sworn statement. Brock was arrested and charged with petit larceny relating to both incidents. He was issued desk appearance tickets and released. The opinion states that the ShopRite and CVS charges were later dismissed in consideration of Brock’s guilty plea to unrelated pending charges, although the court did not resolve whether he pleaded guilty to the April 13 charges themselves.

Brock did not oppose the defendants’ motions for summary judgment despite receiving extensions of time. The court independently reviewed the factual record because Brock was representing himself.

Rulings on the Officer Defendants

The court held that probable cause supported both arrests. Probable cause means information known to the officers that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect committed a crime.

For the April 3 arrest, the court relied on Stewart’s account, his identification of Brock in surveillance photographs, Brock’s presence nearby, and the damaged window. The court found no evidence requiring Officers Browning and Beall to doubt Stewart’s account. Brock’s denial did not eliminate probable cause.

For the April 13 arrest, the court relied on the ShopRite employee’s report, description, sworn statement, and video footage, together with Brock’s matching clothing and presence near the reported theft. Brock also conceded at his deposition that he stole from ShopRite that day. Because probable cause supported the arrest based on the ShopRite incident, the court said it did not matter whether probable cause separately supported the CVS charge.

Because probable cause is a complete defense to false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims against police officers under Section 1983 and New York law, the court granted summary judgment to the Officer Defendants on those claims. The court also granted summary judgment on Brock’s failure-to-intervene claim because that claim requires an underlying constitutional violation, and the court found no such violation.

Rulings on the CVS Defendants

For a Section 1983 claim, the defendant must have acted under color of state law. The court held that the CVS defendants did not meet that requirement. The officers investigated the alleged theft, questioned the CVS employee, obtained video footage and a sworn statement, and exercised independent judgment before arresting Brock. The court therefore granted the CVS defendants summary judgment on Brock’s Section 1983 false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims, even assuming Coronado falsely accused Brock.

The court separately granted the CVS defendants summary judgment on Brock’s New York false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims. Unlike the Section 1983 claims, these state-law claims did not require state action, and the CVS defendants could not rely on probable cause as a defense. But the court found no evidence that the CVS defendants intended to confine Brock or actually confined him during the April 13 incident.

Ruling on the City of White Plains

The court granted summary judgment to the City of White Plains on Brock’s municipal-liability claim. Under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, a city may be liable under Section 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional injury. Brock offered no facts or supporting evidence showing that a White Plains policy caused his injuries. Because his underlying constitutional claims also failed, they could not support a municipal-liability claim.

To the extent Brock intended to assert that the City was responsible under the employer-liability principle known as respondeat superior for the officers’ state-law torts, the court granted summary judgment to the City as well. Brock had not shown that the officers committed the underlying tort of false arrest or false imprisonment.

Disposition

Judge Briccetti granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The court dismissed the CVS and White Plains defendants’ cross-claims for contribution and indemnification as moot because no defendant was liable to Brock. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motions and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brock permission to appeal without paying filing fees.