Davis v. Horton

Nature of the decision

This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not an order shown in the opinion as entered by the assigned district judge. Valerie Figueredo recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which applies when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. She recommended dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint.

Background

Andre Jamel Davis, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sergeant Thomas Horton, Police Officer Anthony Gonzalez, Police Officer Nathaniel Sedita, and Police Officer Jean Calle. Davis alleged that the officers stopped him on January 31, 2023, because his car had an invalid license plate, kept him stopped for about an hour, ordered him out of the car, and had the car towed. He later found damage to the car when he retrieved it from 5 J’s Automotive.

Davis asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242; and a state-law property-damage claim. The defendants moved to dismiss. The court did not consider body-camera footage cited by the defendants because the footage was not included in, incorporated into, or relied on in the complaint. The court did consider photographs Davis submitted with his opposition.

Section 1983 and the traffic stop

Davis alleged that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment and brought that claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. The court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show an unconstitutional stop.

The court reasoned that traffic stops are presumptively reasonable when an officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. New York law requires vehicles to display valid state-issued license plates. The court found that the paper in Davis’s license-plate holder was not a valid license plate and that Davis acknowledged the officers stopped him because of the plate. It therefore concluded that the officers had a lawful reason to stop him. The court recommended that the Section 1983 claim be dismissed with prejudice, finding that amendment would be futile based on the conduct Davis described.

Section 1985 conspiracy claim

Davis also claimed that the officers conspired under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to deprive him of equal protection of the laws. The court found that Davis’s allegation that Horton instructed the other officers to assist with the traffic stop did not plausibly allege an agreement to violate his rights. It also found that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine barred the claim because the defendants were NYPD employees allegedly acting within the scope of their employment.

The court identified additional defects: Davis did not allege the racial or other class-based discriminatory intent required for a Section 1985(3) claim, and the court had already concluded that the traffic stop was lawful. It recommended dismissal with prejudice because amendment would be futile.

Section 1986 claim

Section 1986 provides a claim against a person who knows that a Section 1985 conspiracy is about to deprive someone of equal protection and has the power to prevent it but fails to do so. Because Davis did not state a valid Section 1985 claim, the court concluded that he could not state a Section 1986 claim. It recommended dismissal with prejudice.

Claims under Sections 241 and 242

The court concluded that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are criminal statutes and do not create a private right of action. In other words, those statutes do not authorize an individual to sue under them. It recommended dismissal with prejudice of Davis’s claims under both statutes because amendment could not cure that legal defect.

State property-damage claim

The court treated Davis’s claim for damage to his car as a state-law tort claim. Under New York law, a person suing city employees for a tort generally must serve a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises. The court found that Davis did not allege that he served a timely notice of claim. It also noted that a document Davis filed in May 2024 would have been too late even if it qualified as a notice of claim and had been properly served.

The court further recommended dismissal with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It concluded that the federal claims did not provide a basis for jurisdiction and that the allegations did not establish diversity jurisdiction because Davis and the NYPD officer defendants were alleged to be residents of New York. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

Recommendation and procedural posture

Judge Figueredo recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that Davis’s first amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The report and recommendation directed the parties to file objections with the Clerk within 14 days after service. The opinion does not show a later order by Judge John P. Cronan adopting, rejecting, or modifying the recommendation.