Floyd v. The City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:08-cv-01034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Torres denied requests challenging COVID-19 enforcement and seeking investigation, an injunction, and discovery.
The Floyd and Davis Plaintiffs, the Ligon Plaintiffs as to the requests they joined, the City of New York, and the NYPD; all requested relief was denied.
What happened
In Floyd v. City of New York, the Floyd and Davis Plaintiffs asked the court to rule that the New York City Police Department’s COVID-19 enforcement violated earlier court orders. They also sought an investigation, a ban on further enforcement, and information about arrests, summonses, officer conduct, training, and body-camera videos. The Ligon Plaintiffs joined the requests for an investigation and information.
The court said some alleged conduct involved stops and frisks already covered by its earlier orders and was being addressed through the court-appointed monitor. But it found that many allegations— including arrests, use of force, and other COVID-19 enforcement—went beyond the policies and practices decided in those cases. The court also said a broad ban could stop lawful police activity and that these broader allegations would need to be pursued in a separate lawsuit.
Judge Torres denied every requested form of relief: a declaration of violations, an investigation by the monitor, an injunction against COVID-19 enforcement, and an order compelling discovery. The clerk was also directed to terminate the motion in the Ligon case.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. The City of New York · No. 1:08-cv-01034
- Analisa Torres
- July 8, 2020
Background
The order addressed a motion by the Floyd and Davis Plaintiffs concerning the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) enforcement of state and local COVID-19 rules. The underlying Floyd, Ligon, and Davis litigation concerned NYPD stop, frisk, search, and trespass-enforcement policies and practices. Earlier orders found or addressed unconstitutional race-based policing and established reforms overseen by an independent monitor. The Davis settlement incorporated orders issued in the Floyd and Ligon remedial process.
The plaintiffs alleged that COVID-19 enforcement involved racial disparities in arrests and summonses, excessive force, unjustified stops, and other discriminatory conduct. They relied in part on statistical information concerning enforcement in predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods and on reports of individual encounters. The City disputed the facts of many of those encounters.
Requests for relief
The plaintiffs requested four forms of relief: (1) a declaration that COVID-19 enforcement violated the court’s earlier orders; (2) an order directing the monitor to investigate and report on COVID-19 and curfew enforcement; (3) an injunction barring the NYPD from further COVID-19 enforcement while the court considered the matter; and (4) discovery from the City, including reports, body-worn-camera videos, arrest and summons data, and training and supervisory materials. The Ligon Plaintiffs joined the investigation and discovery requests.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that its power to enforce prior judgments and injunctions is broad but limited to relief necessary to address the violations that were the subject of the prior litigation. It concluded that some alleged conduct—suspicionless and racially motivated stops and frisks—fell within the existing Floyd orders. The monitor was already addressing information about stops, frisks, searches, and trespass enforcement during the pandemic and curfew period.
The court nevertheless concluded that much of the alleged conduct extended beyond the prior litigation. Claims involving disproportionate arrests, excessive force, and alleged failure by City and NYPD leadership to respond did not fall squarely within the policies and practices previously adjudicated. The court stated that people injured by racial bias in arrests or use of force could pursue those allegations in a separate, full lawsuit, but that the motion to enforce the prior orders was not an appropriate vehicle for those claims.
The court also rejected the requested blanket injunction because it would reach police conduct outside the case and could halt lawful enforcement. It found that discovery relating to conduct already being addressed by the monitor was unnecessary through this motion and that discovery extending beyond that conduct was not shown to be within, or an appropriate use of, the court’s inherent power to enforce its judgments.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied the portion of the motion seeking a declaration, a monitor investigation into conduct outside the scope of the litigation, and an injunction against COVID-19 enforcement. The court separately denied the motion to compel discovery. In the conclusion, the court stated that all four requests were denied and directed the clerk to terminate the motion in case number 12 Civ. 2274.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.