Demaitre v. City of New York

Background

Wickenson Demaitre sued the City of New York, Richard Askin, a New York City Department of Investigation investigator, and twenty unnamed defendants. Demaitre alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 involving malicious prosecution, abuse of process, equal protection, conspiracy, and municipal liability.

Demaitre had worked as a correction officer for the New York City Department of Correction. After an inmate at Rikers Island became ill and later died, the Department of Correction and Askin investigated. Demaitre alleged that defendants accused him of filing a false report, suspended and terminated his employment, and helped obtain his indictment for filing a false report and official misconduct. The criminal charges were later dismissed, but the opinion states that neither the amended complaint nor the certificate of disposition explained why they were dismissed.

Demaitre alleged that defendants used non-Caucasian correction officers as scapegoats because of racial bias, fabricated or coerced evidence, and sought to divert attention from problems in the operation of Rikers Island. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim.

Malicious Prosecution

The court held that Demaitre did not adequately plead two required elements of a constitutional malicious-prosecution claim: lack of probable cause and favorable termination of the criminal case.

Because a grand jury indicted Demaitre, the indictment created a presumption that probable cause existed. The court ruled that Demaitre’s allegations that Askin prepared a false report and that defendants coerced false testimony were speculative and conclusory. He did not identify what specifically was false or identify particular misconduct that led to the indictment, so he did not rebut the presumption of probable cause.

The court also ruled that simply alleging that criminal charges were dismissed did not show that the proceeding ended in a way that affirmatively indicated Demaitre’s innocence. Because the basis for dismissal was not stated, the favorable-termination requirement was not adequately pleaded.

Equal Protection

Demaitre alleged that defendants prosecuted non-Caucasian correction officers while not prosecuting similarly situated Caucasian correction officers. The court dismissed this claim because Demaitre did not identify specific similarly situated comparators. The court also found that his broader allegations of racial bias and a policy of using non-Caucasian officers as scapegoats were conclusory and lacked supporting facts. The court therefore did not reach the defendants’ alternative argument that the claim was untimely.

Abuse of Process

An abuse-of-process claim requires improper use of legal process for an objective beyond the legitimate purpose of the criminal proceeding. Demaitre alleged that defendants prosecuted him to divert public attention from their mismanagement of Rikers Island and to obtain positive publicity.

The court dismissed this claim because the allegations about the City’s alleged collateral objective were conclusory and the complaint made no specific allegations about Askin’s personal objective. The court explained that merely alleging an improper motive for arrest and prosecution is not enough; the plaintiff must identify a collateral objective and the defendant’s personal involvement.

Conspiracy

Demaitre alleged that defendants agreed to avoid responsibility for the inmate’s death, cause his indictment and arrest, and prosecute him because of his race. The court ruled that these allegations did not provide facts showing a meeting of the minds or any specific acts taken to advance a conspiracy. The conspiracy claim was therefore dismissed. The court did not reach the defendants’ additional arguments concerning the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine or timeliness.

Municipal Liability

Demaitre asserted that the City had a policy or custom of blaming non-Caucasian correction officers and failing to train or supervise investigators. A municipal-liability claim requires a policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation.

The court first noted that Demaitre had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation. It also ruled that, even if he had, his allegations of a City policy or custom were based on a single incident and boilerplate assertions rather than facts supporting the existence of such a policy or custom. The municipal-liability claim was dismissed.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted Demaitre leave to amend, although he had not requested it. Any motion for leave to amend was due by October 22, 2020, and the proposed second amended complaint had to be attached to the motion. The opinion does not state that the claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.