Raydo v. City of New York

Background

Melanie Raydo and Daniel Lang filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 three years after their arrests on November 25, 2015. Lang identifies as transgender, and Raydo identifies as gender nonbinary. After an altercation with passersby outside a piano bar in lower Manhattan, police officers arrested them, took them to a station house, and later took them to Central Booking. The District Attorney declined to prosecute, and the plaintiffs were released.

The complaint named New York City, Officer Eric Rodriguez, and unidentified officers. It asserted federal civil-rights claims for gender-based humiliation, false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, and malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs consented to dismissal of the malicious-prosecution claim. They also asserted a claim against the City and the New York City Police Department based on the First Amendment, a municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services, and a New York negligent-hiring claim.

Officer Rodriguez was listed as the arresting officer on the arrest paperwork, but the evidence showed that he was not at the arrest scene and was not involved in the decision to arrest the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs testified that they first saw him at the station house several hours after their arrival, where he entered information provided by other officers. The arrest records charged the plaintiffs with obstruction of governmental administration and disorderly conduct based on fighting or violent behavior.

The Motion and the Court’s Analysis

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims against Officer Rodriguez and for dismissal of the remaining claims. The plaintiffs asked to reopen discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which permits additional discovery when a party shows that specified information is necessary to oppose summary judgment.

Claims Against Officer Rodriguez

The court held that the plaintiffs had not produced evidence showing that Officer Rodriguez was personally involved in their arrests or in the other conduct underlying their claims. Personal involvement is required for damages against an individual defendant under § 1983.

As to false arrest, the court explained that an officer may avoid liability by showing probable cause or qualified immunity. It concluded that Rodriguez was entitled to rely on the descriptions of events supplied by fellow officers under the collective-knowledge doctrine. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that a note in Rodriguez’s memo book or the narrative in the arrest report suggested that he had been present at the scene or personally witnessed the conduct described.

The court noted that the plaintiffs identified the officers who actually placed them under arrest as John Doe defendants but did not amend the complaint to name them, even after the City disclosed the names of two officers involved in the arrests. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ failure or inability to name and serve the responsible officers did not permit them to substitute Rodriguez for those officers.

Municipal Liability Against the City

A Monell claim seeks to hold a municipality liable for a constitutional violation caused by an official policy, custom, or sufficiently deficient training program. The court ruled that the complaint did not adequately plead such a claim.

The plaintiffs relied on citations to twelve civil lawsuits and a 2017 Village Voice article. The court found that the complaint did not explain the allegations or outcomes in those lawsuits, and that the cited decisions did not establish a widespread pattern of false arrests of transgender people comparable to the arrests at issue. The court also found that the article concerned transgender detainees in the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections and did not describe false arrests.

The plaintiffs also relied on a 2012 revision to the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide concerning the treatment of transgender people. The court held that merely citing that revision did not allege a specific training or disciplinary deficiency connected to the plaintiffs’ arrests. The Monell claim was therefore dismissed because the complaint failed to state a claim.

Request for Additional Discovery

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery. It found that the City had provided the automatic arrest-related disclosures required by Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.10, including information identifying two officers associated with the arrests. The plaintiffs did not request additional discovery after mediation or the later conference, did not notice depositions, and did not show that they had diligently pursued the information they sought. The court also ruled that additional discovery could not be used to revive a Monell claim that had not been adequately pleaded.

State-Law Claim

The City asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining New York negligent-hiring claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but a court may decline that jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims. The court granted the request, concluding that judicial economy and respect for state courts favored dismissal of the remaining state-law claim.

Disposition

Judge Denise Cote granted the defendants’ December 6 motion for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants on each § 1983 claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state negligent-hiring claim and dismissed it without prejudice to refiling in state court.