Dominguez v. City of New York

Background

Steven Dominguez sued the City of New York and five individual New York City Police Department officers over events on December 31, 2019. Dominguez alleged that officers assaulted him, placed him in a restraint bag, falsely arrested him, and caused him to face a felony assault charge. The criminal case was later dismissed on speedy-trial grounds.

The City had issued body-worn cameras to officers, and department policy required officers to record incidents of the type involved here. The policy also required officers to notify a desk officer if a camera was not working during a tour. At least two officers knew that their camera batteries had run out, and none of the cameras worn by the officers recorded the use of force. Dominguez’s claims against the individual officers were not at issue in this motion.

Dominguez also brought a claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services. A municipality may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a municipal policy, custom, or practice causes a constitutional violation. The City moved for partial summary judgment on that claim.

Theories of municipal liability

Dominguez presented two theories. First, he argued that the City failed to ensure proper use of body-worn cameras, making it easier for officers to assault him without consequences. Second, he argued that the City failed to preserve potentially favorable body-camera evidence, causing a violation involving disclosure of evidence and depriving him of a fair trial.

For the first theory, the court explained that Dominguez had to present evidence of a direct causal link between the City’s policy or practice and the alleged constitutional violation. Evidence that body cameras may discourage police misconduct, including testimony that proper camera use is important and department statements that cameras may help de-escalate encounters, showed at most an association. The court held that Dominguez presented no evidence that the City’s failure to ensure proper camera use was the direct cause of the alleged assault. The court also noted that a plausible theory sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss was not enough at the summary-judgment stage, where evidence must allow a reasonable jury to rule for the nonmoving party.

For the second theory, the court stated that the operative complaint did not mention the deletion of body-camera recordings or an alleged violation involving favorable evidence. The court therefore held that summary judgment on this new theory was justified because Dominguez had not pleaded it.

Request to amend the complaint

In a footnote to his opposition, Dominguez alternatively asked the court to treat the opposition as a request to amend the complaint after the deadline. The court denied that request. It concluded that Dominguez had not shown good cause for amendment under the scheduling-order standard because he had the relevant facts by November 30, 2022, but waited eighteen months to seek amendment. The court added that, even under the more permissive standard that might apply if no amendment deadline had been set, the eighteen-month delay would justify denial based on undue delay.

Ruling and other orders

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the City’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court also denied Dominguez’s request to amend the complaint to add a municipal-liability theory based on an alleged violation involving deleted body-camera recordings. The parties were ordered to submit their trial availability, and four documents that had been temporarily sealed were ordered unsealed.