Baker v. City of New York

Background

Jabari Baker alleged that, on March 2, 2016, while he was on a New York City subway platform, a police officer grabbed his arm and slammed him face-first onto the ground. Baker testified that he suffered two fractured teeth and abrasions to his hip and hand. He said that only one officer threw him down and that he could not identify that officer by name at the time.

Baker described the officer who allegedly threw him as tall, heavily built, and having a Caucasian complexion. He described the other two officers as Asian and smaller. The three defendants—Pedro Jiminian, Tenzin Gyaltsen, and Hui Chi—were the officers who arrested Baker. Baker was later charged with theft of services and criminal trespass and released that day with a desk appearance ticket listing Jiminian as the arresting officer.

Jiminian testified that he displayed his police shield, identified himself as a police officer, and saw Baker run through a turnstile, trip, and fall on his face. Chi testified that he saw Baker enter through an emergency exit without paying and try to escape. Gyaltsen testified that he saw Baker enter through the emergency exit, run through the turnstile, and fall.

Baker initially alleged that Jiminian and an unidentified officer had grabbed and thrown him down. After defense counsel identified Gyaltsen and Chi as officers who had been with Jiminian, Baker amended his complaint to name them and alleged that all three officers had grabbed and thrown him. He later testified that only one officer had done so and maintained that Jiminian was that officer.

Claims and Motion

Baker brought two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state or local officials for constitutional violations. He claimed that the defendants used excessive force during his arrest or failed to stop another officer from using excessive force. He also claimed that the defendants falsely arrested him.

The defendants moved for summary judgment only on the excessive-force claim. Summary judgment is a ruling before trial that is appropriate when the evidence shows no real dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The defendants did not argue that no reasonable jury could find that an officer grabbed Baker and threw him down. Instead, they argued that Baker lacked enough evidence to show each defendant’s personal involvement.

Court’s Analysis

A police officer may be personally involved in excessive force by directly using the force or by being present and failing to intervene when the officer had a realistic opportunity to prevent it. Whether an officer had such an opportunity ordinarily goes to the jury, unless the evidence could not support that conclusion.

As to Jiminian’s alleged direct use of force, the court denied summary judgment. Baker’s description of the officer did not match every aspect of Jiminian’s appearance, particularly the officer’s reported height. But the description reasonably pointed to Jiminian rather than Gyaltsen or Chi because of the differences in their reported builds and ethnic descriptions, and because Jiminian was listed as the arresting officer. The court held that the inconsistencies could affect Baker’s credibility but did not prevent a reasonable jury from deciding whether Jiminian was the officer who threw him down. Credibility decisions belong to the jury, not the court on summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on any claim that Gyaltsen or Chi directly used the force because Baker’s testimony was that only one officer threw him down and Baker identified that officer as Jiminian.

The court also granted summary judgment on the failure-to-intervene claims. Baker testified that the alleged assault happened within seconds: he felt his arm grabbed and was immediately slammed to the ground, with his teeth breaking instantly. Chi was about 30 feet away, and Gyaltsen was close to—but not within arm’s reach of—the turnstiles. Baker testified that the second officer arrived about a minute later and the third about five or six minutes later. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Gyaltsen or Chi had a realistic opportunity to intervene. The court also granted summary judgment on any claim that Jiminian failed to intervene in his own alleged use of force, because an officer cannot be liable for failing to stop himself from committing the same violation.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The claim against Jiminian for directly using excessive force remains for trial. The excessive-force claims based on direct participation by Gyaltsen and Chi and on failure to intervene by the defendants do not remain. Baker’s separate false-arrest claim against all defendants also remains for trial because the defendants did not move for summary judgment on that claim.