Rattray v. Cadavid

Background

Wentworth Rattray, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that on November 5, 2016, New York City Police Department Officers Jose Cadavid and Alyssa Trigueno came to his apartment after the mother of his daughter sought to pick up the child. Rattray alleged that Cadavid threatened to take down the door, forced it open, entered the apartment, searched several areas without a warrant or consent, blocked the exit, questioned him, and refused to let him leave. Rattray also alleged that Sergeant Mervin Bautista approved a police report that omitted or misstated important details about the encounter.

Rattray’s proposed Third Amended Complaint asserted federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unreasonable search, false arrest, excessive force, due process violations, failure to intervene, and municipal or supervisory liability. It also asserted a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and several state-law claims.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker recommended granting Rattray’s motion for leave to amend only as to a Section 1983 false-arrest claim against Officer Cadavid. She recommended denying leave as to the state-law claims because Rattray had not complied with New York’s notice-of-claim requirements and had not previously been given permission to amend those claims. She also recommended denying leave as to the proposed unlawful-search claim against Sergeant Bautista, excessive-force claim against Cadavid, due-process claim, municipal-liability claim, and Section 1985 conspiracy claim.

Judge Parker concluded that Rattray had plausibly alleged a false arrest even without a formal arrest because he alleged that Cadavid forced entry, refused to let him leave, and confined him in the apartment for about 63 minutes. She concluded that the excessive-force claim was insufficient because Rattray alleged no physical injury from being struck by the door. She also found that the due-process allegations involved conduct governed by the Fourth Amendment, did not describe conduct shocking the conscience, and contained only conclusory assertions of racial bias. The proposed municipal-liability claim lacked facts linking a city policy or custom to the alleged violations, and the conspiracy claim lacked sufficient facts about discriminatory motivation and was also barred under the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine as pleaded.

District Court’s Ruling

Judge Paul G. Gardephe overruled Rattray’s objections and adopted Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Rattray’s motion for leave to amend only to the extent that he could file a Third Amended Complaint containing a Section 1983 false-arrest claim against Officer Cadavid. The court denied leave to amend as to the state-law claims, the proposed unlawful-search claim against Sergeant Bautista, the excessive-force claim against Cadavid, the due-process claim, the municipal-liability claim, and the Section 1985 conspiracy claim.

The court stated that the Third Amended Complaint would contain only these claims: the existing Section 1983 unlawful-search claim against Officers Cadavid and Trigueno; the Section 1983 false-arrest claim against Cadavid; and the Section 1983 failure-to-intervene claim against Trigueno based on the alleged unlawful search and false arrest. Rattray was required to file that complaint by July 27, 2020.