Crespo v. New York City Police Commanding Officer

Background

Herman Crespo, representing himself, sued the New York County District Attorney, three Assistant District Attorneys, and three New York City Police Department detectives over alleged misconduct in a burglary prosecution that lasted from August 2011 through January 2013. Crespo was acquitted at trial. He alleged that the defendants knew he was not guilty and falsely claimed that DNA and videotape evidence implicated him. He also alleged that the District Attorney failed to properly train and supervise the Assistant District Attorneys.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Crespo’s claims. It allowed Crespo to seek permission to amend certain claims: a claim concerning District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s alleged failure to train and supervise, and claims against Detectives Geraldo Rivera and Jose Morales for malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, alleged Eighth Amendment and due-process violations, abuse of process, and equal protection. Crespo later filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint, which the court treated as a motion for permission to file it.

Legal standard

A court generally should allow a party to amend a complaint when fairness requires it, particularly when a self-represented complaint might state a valid claim. But a court may deny permission when the amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile when the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Other possible reasons for denial include undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct earlier deficiencies, and prejudice to the opposing party.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the proposed Second Amended Complaint repeated the same defects as the earlier complaint.

- Detectives Rivera and Morales: Crespo added no new factual allegations concerning these detectives. The court therefore denied permission to amend the claims against them as futile. - District Attorney Vance: Crespo alleged in conclusory terms that Vance improperly trained and supervised subordinates and failed to address their misconduct. The court found that the allegation lacked factual support and did not show the policy or practice, or deliberate indifference, needed for the asserted claim concerning Vance. The court denied permission to amend against Vance as futile. - Proposed district attorney’s office team and training supervisors: Crespo identified these proposed defendants but included no allegations against them. The court denied permission to add them as futile. - Detective McNair: Crespo alleged that McNair knew about DNA reports and received DNA results showing no match before the materials were provided to the District Attorney’s Office. The court found that Crespo did not explain how McNair’s handling of the DNA evidence violated Crespo’s constitutional rights. The court also found that Crespo had delayed naming McNair because McNair’s role had been disclosed in an earlier defense filing, but Crespo did not name him in the amended complaint filed afterward. Permission to add McNair was therefore denied both as futile and because of delay.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied Crespo leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any outstanding motions, close the case, and send Crespo a copy of the order by certified mail. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Crespo permission to proceed without paying the usual filing fees for an appeal.