Beach v. The City of New York

Background

Malia Beach alleged that police officers unlawfully detained and assaulted her during a protest on the Brooklyn Bridge on April 24, 2021. According to the allegations summarized in the opinion, officers gave conflicting instructions to protesters, Sergeant Roberto Dominguez pepper-sprayed the crowd, and Beach was thrown to the ground. Beach further alleged that officers hit her with their arms, hands, and batons, exposed parts of her body while arresting and transporting her, and tightened her restraints until she lost feeling in her fingers. She also alleged that she told officers she had epilepsy before her arrest and assault.

Beach's First Amended Complaint asserted excessive-force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and New York law. The claims named the City of New York, Sergeant Gerard Dowling, Sergeant Roberto Dominguez, Police Officer Andy Collado, and Police Officers John Does #1–6, in their individual and official capacities. In an August 28, 2023 order, the court dismissed the First Cause of Action with prejudice on substantive and qualified-immunity grounds.

Motion for reconsideration

Beach moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court explained that this type of motion requires a showing of an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Under the court's discussion of Local Rule 6.3, the moving party must also identify controlling law or factual matters previously presented that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result.

Beach argued that the court had erred by relying on four body-camera videos, by failing to accept the First Amended Complaint's factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in her favor, and by failing to account for newly discovered evidence. She specifically sought reconsideration of the dismissal of claims that officers hit or kicked her and claims concerning officers' partially stripping her or failing to promptly and reasonably redress her.

Body-camera footage

The court rejected Beach's argument that the body-camera footage could not be considered. It held that the videos were integral to the complaint because they depicted the interactions giving rise to the claims and because Beach had stated that she viewed body-camera footage and intended to incorporate facts from all obtained footage into an amended complaint. The court therefore concluded that it was permitted to consider the footage when deciding the earlier motion to dismiss.

The court also concluded that Beach had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, new law, clear error, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration. It found that her argument about not submitting the footage in opposition to the earlier motion did not establish that she had not relied on the footage when preparing the First Amended Complaint.

Disposition

The court denied Beach's motion for reconsideration. It separately granted Beach leave to file a Second Amended Complaint incorporating the Civilian Complaint Review Board's findings that officers Liang and Garcia committed sexual misconduct and sexual humiliation, with the filing due on or before October 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 59.