Daley v. Gomez

Background

Michael Daley and Susanne Daley sued P.O. Jonathan Gomez, P.O. Ronnie Charles, P.O. Reggie Anderson, and P.O. Andrew Cole Hatchard. Defendants removed the action from New York state court to the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for assault, battery, excessive force, illegal search and seizure, false arrest, equal protection, and loss of consortium. The parties had previously stipulated to discontinuing the claims against Officers Charles and Anderson, as well as the failure-to-intervene claim.

The remaining dispute arose from a June 16, 2021 incident at Hillcrest Point Apartments. Officers Gomez and Cole-Hatchard encountered Michael Daley near a crowd in the apartment parking lot. The court stated that it was undisputed that Daley was yelling, involved in a heated conversation, holding a bullhorn, upset, flailing his arms, and acting aggressively. Before the incident, Daley had posted an Instagram video stating, among other things, that he was a gun owner and would shoot people. Officers also knew that his pistol permit had been suspended and were warned by dispatch that one of the people involved in the incident was making weapon threats.

The officers handcuffed Daley, brought him to a patrol vehicle, and searched his waist and pockets. They found no weapon on his person, but a loaded shotgun was found under the back seat of his truck. Officer Cole-Hatchard then moved Daley into the patrol vehicle. Defendants said he was resisting and that Cole-Hatchard pulled him under the armpit. Daley said the officer pulled him by the handcuffs. No criminal charges were filed because the incident was determined to be a “mutual combatant’s argument.”

Summary-judgment standard and evidentiary record

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court generally must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but the opposing party must identify specific evidence supporting a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ required statement of facts often failed to cite admissible evidence. Many responses referred to an “Exhibit A” that did not exist in the record. Applying the Southern District’s strict local rule, the court treated Defendants’ factual assertions as admitted when Plaintiffs had not properly controverted them, while considering evidence that did show a genuine factual dispute.

Excessive force, assault, and battery

The court analyzed the federal excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. It explained that the related state-law assault and battery claims were substantially similar except for the requirement that a § 1983 claim involve a state actor.

The parties disagreed about whether Cole-Hatchard pulled Daley under his armpit or by his handcuffs. Even accepting Daley’s version, the court found that the contact lasted only seconds, occurred while Daley was handcuffed and had not followed an instruction to sit in the patrol vehicle, and was a minimal use of force. The court held that the force was reasonable under the circumstances and granted summary judgment dismissing the excessive-force, assault, and battery claims in the First through Fourth Claims for Relief.

False arrest and illegal search and seizure

The court held that probable cause is a complete defense to a false-arrest claim. Probable cause exists when the facts known to officers would cause a reasonable person to believe that the individual had committed or was committing a crime. The court also considered qualified immunity, which can protect officers when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

The court concluded that the undisputed evidence established probable cause, or at least arguable probable cause, to arrest Daley for disorderly conduct. The court relied on the officers’ observations of Daley yelling and acting aggressively near a crowd, his conduct with a bullhorn, the prior Instagram threats, and the dispatch warning about weapon threats. The court found it reasonable for the officers to believe that Daley was at least recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm under New York’s disorderly-conduct statute.

Because the detention was lawful, the court also held that the officers’ pat-down search of Daley’s waist and pockets was lawful as a search connected to the arrest. The court therefore granted summary judgment dismissing the false-arrest and illegal-search-and-seizure claims in the Third and Fourth Claims for Relief.

Equal protection

The court held that an equal-protection claim requires evidence that similarly situated people were treated differently and that discriminatory intent was a motivating factor. The court found no evidence that Plaintiffs were treated differently from similarly situated individuals and no evidence of discriminatory motive. It ruled that Plaintiffs’ speculation about personal animus was insufficient and granted summary judgment dismissing the equal-protection claim in the Fourth Claim for Relief.

Loss of consortium and disposition

The court stated that the Seventh Claim for Relief, alleging loss of consortium, was a derivative claim that could not exist separately from the injured spouse’s underlying claims. Because the underlying substantive claims were dismissed, the court held that the loss-of-consortium claim also failed as a matter of law.

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the Opinion and Order on June 24, 2025.