Torres v. NYC Police Department
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:16-cv-02362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Torres v. NYC Police Department, Judge Abrams denied McGowan’s motion to dismiss Torres’s Fourth Amendment claim.
The ruling allowed Wilfredo Torres’s claims against Dennis McGowan to proceed past the pleading stage, although it did not decide whether Torres would ultimately prevail. It directly denied McGowan’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Torres v. NYC Police Department, Wilfredo Torres, representing himself, alleged that Dennis McGowan helped cause police officers to enter and search his apartment without a warrant. Torres brought claims under the First and Fourth Amendments and a federal civil-rights statute.
A magistrate judge recommended denying McGowan’s request to dismiss the case because Torres had plausibly alleged that McGowan directed or helped cause the warrantless entry and search. The magistrate judge also said the record did not provide enough information to decide whether McGowan was protected by qualified immunity.
Judge Ronnie Abrams found no clear error in the recommendation and adopted it in full. The court denied McGowan’s motion to dismiss, while expressing skepticism that the case would survive a later request for judgment based on evidence.
The detailed version
- Torres v. NYC Police Department · No. 1:16-cv-02362
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 18, 2020
Background
Wilfredo Torres, representing himself, sued several defendants over alleged events involving his apartment. The opinion states that his claims included alleged violations of the First and Fourth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people who, under color of state law, violate constitutional rights. The claims addressed in this opinion were against Dennis McGowan, whom Torres alleged was then the inspector general of the New York City Department of Buildings.
Torres alleged that police officers entered his apartment on September 28, 2015, by breaking down the door, searched it without a warrant, and told him that McGowan had sent them. Torres further alleged that McGowan set the warrantless entry and search in motion by directing New York City police officers to go to the apartment.
Report and Recommendation
McGowan moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally viable claim. Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying the motion. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the Report explained that a person may be liable under § 1983 for helping bring about another person’s rights violation indirectly, rather than personally carrying it out.
The Report concluded that Torres had pleaded enough facts to plausibly allege that McGowan, acting together with New York City police officers, violated Torres’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Report also stated that the record lacked enough information to properly analyze whether qualified immunity applied. McGowan did not object to the Report. The opinion notes that McGowan disputed Torres’s allegations, but the court could not properly consider facts asserted only in McGowan’s legal memorandum at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Ruling
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report for clear error and found none. Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted the Report in its entirety and denied McGowan’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The clerk was directed to terminate that motion.
The court separately stated that, after reviewing the record concerning other defendants and the September 28, 2015 incident, it was highly skeptical that the action could survive a later motion for summary judgment. That statement was not a ruling on summary judgment or on the ultimate merits of Torres’s claims. The opinion addressed only whether Torres’s allegations against McGowan were sufficient to proceed past the pleading stage.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.