Drew v. The City Of New York

Background

Keith L. Drew, proceeding without counsel, sued the City of New York and members of the New York City Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, selective enforcement, conspiracy, and violations of equal protection and due process. The complaint also asserted common-law tort claims when read broadly. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plead enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Drew alleged that Officer Wilfred Martinez stopped, searched, and arrested him near a Times Square subway station on June 30, 2018. Drew was charged with offenses involving farecards and a forged instrument. He later pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and was sentenced to two to four years in prison. Drew denied selling farecards and alleged that Martinez manipulated or forged the MetroCards involved. He also challenged his inclusion in the Transit Recidivist Database and sought damages and removal of his name from it.

Claims Against Officer Martinez

The court held that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred Drew’s damages claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence. Under that rule, a civil-rights claim for damages cannot proceed when success would necessarily call into question an existing conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Drew’s conviction had not been invalidated, and the court concluded that success on these claims would undermine it. These claims were dismissed.

The court also dismissed Drew’s remaining federal claims against Martinez. The court said that any challenge to the farecard statute was either barred by the same rule or plainly meritless. Drew’s selective-enforcement claim lacked facts showing that he was treated differently from a similarly situated person, and his conspiracy claim lacked facts showing an agreement between Martinez and Assistant District Attorney Alissa Wimmer to violate his rights.

Transit Recidivist Database Claims

The court treated Drew’s challenge to the database as asserting race-discrimination and due-process claims. The race-discrimination claim failed because Drew did not plead facts showing that the database had a disparate effect on an identifiable racial group or that it was created or used with a discriminatory purpose. The newspaper article on which he relied concerned a different database, and his general allegations about racial targeting were insufficient.

The due-process claim also failed. A due-process claim based on the stigma-plus doctrine requires a sufficiently damaging and false statement plus a concrete government-imposed burden or change in legal status. The court stated that being labeled a recidivist could be stigmatizing, but Drew acknowledged that he had prior transit-related convictions. He therefore had not alleged that the recidivist label was false, and he did not establish a protected liberty interest requiring notice or a hearing. The court dismissed the database claims seeking damages or injunctive relief.

Claims Against Supervisors and the City

The court dismissed Drew’s § 1983 claims against the supervisory defendants and the City. Under Heck, his conviction also barred claims that City policies caused a constitutional violation connected to his conviction. In addition, because Drew had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation, his claims against the supervisors and the City failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed all federal claims. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Drew had pleaded, and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court declined to grant Drew leave to amend again because it had already allowed an amendment, he had not identified additional facts that would cure the defects, and he had been warned that he would not receive another opportunity to amend.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, close the case, and mail Drew a copy of the opinion and order.