Scott Fleming v. The City Of New York
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-04866
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Fleming v. City of New York: Judge Daniels denied reconsideration of dismissed claims involving alleged retaliation and suppressed evidence.
Patricia Scott Fleming and the defendants in the case, including the City of New York and the medical defendants. The order left in place the earlier dismissal of the challenged retaliation and prosecution-related claims while leaving the previously preserved claims unchanged.
What happened
In Patricia Scott Fleming v. City of New York et al., Patricia Scott Fleming sued over alleged assault and medical malpractice involving her son, Patrick Fleming, during pretrial detention at Rikers Island. She brought constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law, along with claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The court had previously dismissed all but four claims.
Fleming asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation claim and prosecution-related claims involving allegedly suppressed evidence. She argued that the court had applied the wrong standard to the retaliation claim and had improperly applied a rule limiting damages claims that would undermine an existing conviction or plea.
Judge George B. Daniels denied the motion for reconsideration. He concluded that Fleming had repeated earlier arguments, had not identified overlooked controlling law or facts, and had improperly raised a new argument about duress affecting Patrick Fleming’s guilty plea.
The detailed version
- Scott Fleming v. The City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04866
- George Daniels
- May 5, 2020
Background
Patricia Scott Fleming sued as administratrix of Patrick Fleming’s estate and individually. She alleged that Patrick Fleming was assaulted and subjected to medical malpractice during his pretrial detention at Rikers Island Correctional Center. The complaint asserted constitutional claims enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and claims under the Rehabilitation Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In an August 27, 2019 decision, the court dismissed all but four claims. The court had allowed certain § 1983 deliberate-indifference claims against Drs. Maung Maungoo, Myat Win, and Antonio Martinez to continue, and had denied dismissal of the City Defendants’ § 1983 deliberate-indifference, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and negligence claims.
Motion for Reconsideration
Fleming moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the August 27, 2019 decision. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling decisions or important facts, when controlling law has changed, when new evidence is available, or when correction of a clear error or prevention of manifest injustice requires it. The court emphasized that reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate earlier arguments or present new theories.
First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Fleming argued that the court had improperly used a summary-judgment standard when it dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the complaint lacked sufficiently detailed factual allegations showing retaliatory intent by the correctional-officer defendants. Temporal proximity between Fleming’s complaints or grievances and the alleged assault, standing alone as alleged here, did not provide a basis to reconsider the earlier ruling. The court also found that the other retaliation decisions Fleming cited involved more suggestive factual allegations.
Prosecution-Related Brady Claims
Fleming also argued that the court had improperly applied Heck v. Humphrey when dismissing claims concerning allegedly suppressed exculpatory video evidence and a suggestive lineup. The court stated that Patrick Fleming had pleaded guilty to the armed robbery for which he was prosecuted and that the conviction had not been invalidated. Under the rule discussed by the court, damages claims that would undermine an existing conviction or sentence cannot proceed unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question through federal habeas relief.
Fleming argued for the first time in the reconsideration motion that Patrick Fleming’s guilty plea was invalid because illness placed him under duress. The court held that a reconsideration motion could not be used to introduce new facts or arguments that had not previously been presented. The court also rejected Fleming’s argument that an exception applied because habeas relief was unavailable, finding that the argument principally repeated one the court had already considered and rejected.
Disposition
The court denied Patricia Scott Fleming’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was instructed to close the motion. This order did not alter the August 27, 2019 ruling described in the opinion.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.