Alba v. City of New York

Background

Jose Alba brought an action principally under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from his arrest, prosecution, and detention after he stabbed and killed a man at the convenience store where Alba worked. The opinion addresses motions to dismiss filed by the City of New York and eight named individual defendants, and by New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Alba also moved for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses had recommended dismissing Claims 1–8 and 10–14 with prejudice, dismissing Claims 9 and 15 without prejudice, and denying Alba’s motion to amend. The district court agreed with the report and recommendation except that it concluded Alba’s claims should not be dismissed with prejudice.

Materials Considered on the Motions to Dismiss

The court held that it could consider the store videos and interrogation videos at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The complaint expressly referred to and relied on the store videos, making them incorporated into the complaint by reference. The complaint also relied heavily on the interrogation videos, making them integral to the complaint.

The court stated that, because Alba did not challenge the videos’ accuracy or material completeness, allegations contradicted by those videos did not have to be accepted as true. After considering the complaint and the videos, the court agreed that Alba had not alleged facts showing that the defendants lacked probable cause either to arrest him at the scene of the stabbing or to charge him the following day.

Motion to Amend

Alba’s motion to file a second amended complaint did not include the proposed pleading required by the court’s rules. Because the court could not determine what changes Alba proposed or whether those changes would be futile, it denied the motion for leave to amend.

The court nevertheless stated that it would not deny Alba a final opportunity to seek permission to amend. Any renewed motion had to comply with Local Civil Rule 15.1(a) and explain why the proposed amendments would not be futile in light of the memorandum and order.

Disposition

Judge Kaplan granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied Alba’s motion for leave to amend. The ruling was without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend filed no later than January 24, 2025. That motion had to include a clean proposed amended complaint, a redlined version showing changes from the first amended complaint, and a memorandum explaining why the amendments would not be futile.