Ramos v. City of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-04938
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Ramos v. City of New York, Judge Carter granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion, finding probable cause defeated Ramos’s federal claims and dismissing the remaining state claims.
Miguel Ramos’s federal civil-rights claims were dismissed, and his remaining New York constitutional claims were also dismissed after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction. The City of New York and Officers Lennoxan Samerson and Frank Gandolfi received judgment in their favor.
What happened
In Ramos v. City of New York, Miguel Ramos sued the City of New York and Police Officers Lennoxan Samerson and Frank Gandolfi. He claimed that they falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted him after an alleged subway assault, failed to intervene, and violated his rights under the New York Constitution.
The officers said they had probable cause because Samerson witnessed Ramos touching A.S. without consent, and A.S. confirmed that someone had touched her. Ramos disputed Samerson’s identification and argued that the subway travel records and other evidence created a fact dispute. The court found that Ramos had not produced enough evidence for a jury to reject the officers’ account.
Judge Carter granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Ramos’s federal false-arrest, malicious-prosecution, and failure-to-intervene claims after finding probable cause for his arrest and prosecution. The court also dismissed the remaining state-law claims because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04938
- Andrew Carter
- July 16, 2020
Background
Miguel Ramos sued the City of New York and Police Officers Lennoxan Samerson and Frank Gandolfi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. His claims included false arrest, malicious prosecution, and failure to intervene. He also asserted claims under the New York Constitution. Ramos had originally asserted additional claims, including excessive force, assault and battery, and municipal liability, but the opinion states that he later withdrew those claims.
On May 16, 2016, Officers Samerson and Gandolfi were working in plain clothes in a New York City subway district. Samerson testified that she saw Ramos grind his groin against the buttocks of A.S. while riding an uptown 6 train. After A.S. left the train, Samerson asked whether anything unusual had happened. A.S. confirmed that someone had touched her buttocks without consent, but she did not participate in an identification procedure. Samerson radioed Gandolfi, who arrested Ramos based on that information.
Ramos was charged in New York County Criminal Court with two counts of forcible touching and two counts of third-degree sexual abuse. He pleaded not guilty. The charges were dismissed on July 21, 2017, under New York’s speedy-trial provisions. Ramos then pursued this federal civil-rights action.
Summary-judgment standard
The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once defendants showed an absence of supporting evidence, Ramos needed to present specific evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in his favor.
False arrest
The court held that probable cause defeated Ramos’s false-arrest claim. Probable cause means facts known to the officers that would lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the person arrested committed an offense.
The court relied on Samerson’s sworn testimony that she witnessed Ramos touch A.S. and on A.S.’s statement that someone had touched her without consent. The court rejected Ramos’s argument that inconsistencies in Samerson’s diagram and the absence of a victim identification procedure created a genuine factual dispute. It also held that Gandolfi was entitled to rely on Samerson’s account as a fellow officer.
The court further stated that probable cause may exist even when an officer reasonably relies on mistaken information. Although Ramos argued that he was not the earlier person Samerson had followed on the subway, the court found no evidence that any mistake of identity was unreasonable or made in bad faith. The court noted testimony that the earlier suspect and Ramos wore the same clothes, hat, and bag.
The court concluded that there was probable cause for Ramos’s arrest and dismissed the false-arrest claim. Because probable cause resolved that claim, the court did not decide whether the officers also had qualified immunity.
Malicious prosecution
The court also held that probable cause defeated Ramos’s malicious-prosecution claim. The court found that the same probable cause supporting the arrest continued to support the prosecution because there was no exculpatory evidence or intervening fact that undermined it. The court therefore dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim without reaching the separate issues of favorable termination, malice, or qualified immunity.
Failure to intervene
The court dismissed the failure-to-intervene claim. It reasoned that an officer must intervene when another officer is violating a person’s constitutional rights, but the court had found that Ramos’s arrest and prosecution did not violate his constitutional rights. Therefore, there was nothing for another officer to prevent.
State-law claims
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case, over Ramos’s remaining New York constitutional claims. The court dismissed those state-law claims as well.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and ordered entry of judgment for defendants.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.