Lynch v. City Of New York

Background

Richard Lynch brought federal and state civil-rights claims against the City of New York and members of the New York City Police Department based on his arrest during a demonstration. He alleged that Officer Mariann Mandy and another officer used excessive force, causing physical injury, and that Mandy falsely swore out summonses accusing him of offenses. Lynch also sued Andrew Lombardo, alleging that Lombardo oversaw the police response, instructed officers to deny Lynch food, water, and restroom access while he was detained, and failed to protect or supervise subordinates. Lynch alleged that Lester Paverman, an attorney in the NYPD Legal Bureau, may have worked with Mandy to create false allegations supporting Lynch’s arrest.

The court had dismissed the entire lawsuit in March 2018 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the claims against Lombardo and Paverman, among others, but vacated dismissal of the claims against the City and Mandy. Lynch then proposed a second amended complaint, arguing that it fixed the problems identified on appeal.

Motion to Amend

The court denied leave to amend because the proposed amendments would be futile. An amendment is futile when the proposed allegations would still fail to state a legally sufficient claim.

As to Lombardo, the court held that the proposed complaint did not plausibly show his direct or indirect participation in the alleged misconduct against Lynch. The complaint alleged that Lombardo supervised Mandy, controlled police operations, and directed or approved Lynch’s arrest and use of force. But the court found these allegations too generalized. A logbook entry showing that Lombardo and Mandy directed an officer to consult Paverman about a different detainee, Vienna Rye, did not reasonably support an inference that Lombardo participated in Lynch’s arrest or in preparing Lynch’s summonses. The court also noted that the proposed complaint did not adequately allege that Mandy was among the officers Lombardo supervised.

As to Paverman, the court held that the allegations remained speculative and conclusory. The same logbook entry concerned a consultation about Rye, not Lynch. The court rejected the attempt to make the allegations sufficient merely by changing the wording from “possibly” colluding to “very likely” colluding. Leave to amend was therefore denied as to the proposed claims against both Lombardo and Paverman.

Motion to Bifurcate

The defendants asked the court to bifurcate, meaning separate, discovery and trial of Lynch’s Monell claim against the City from the claims against the individual defendants. A Monell claim seeks to hold a municipality responsible for a constitutional violation caused by a municipal policy or custom.

The court granted the motion. It explained that Lynch would first have to establish an underlying constitutional violation before the City could be liable under the Monell theory. Because discovery on the city-policy claims could be expensive and unnecessary if Lynch could not prove individual liability, separating the proceedings would promote convenience and conserve resources.

Motion to Stay and Disposition

The defendants also requested a 90-day stay because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied that motion as moot because the request was made on April 10, 2020, and the proposed stay would have ended on July 9, 2020, before the court ruled on it.

The final dispositions were: Lynch’s motion for leave to amend was DENIED; the defendants’ motion to bifurcate was GRANTED; and the defendants’ motion for a 90-day stay was DENIED as moot. The parties were directed to confer and advise the court by letter by July 21 about how to proceed, and the Clerk was directed to close the open motion.