Strachn v. NYPD
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-10212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Kawahn Strachn v. City of New York, Judge Oetken granted the motion to dismiss but allowed Strachn 60 days to amend.
Kawahn Strachn's claims against the City of New York and Officer Railyng Frias were dismissed through the granted motion, but he was allowed 60 days to amend. The opinion did not finally resolve the claims against the unserved defendants Gomez and Edmonds.
What happened
In Kawahn Strachn v. City of New York, Kawahn Strachn alleged that his arrest and hours-long detention violated his constitutional and statutory rights. He sued the City of New York and Officer Railyng Frias, among others, without a lawyer.
The court ruled that Strachn did not allege a city policy or custom supporting a claim against the City, or Officer Frias’s personal involvement in the alleged violations. It also found that his statutory claims failed for the same reasons.
Judge Oetken granted the City and Frias’s motion to dismiss, while allowing Strachn 60 days to file an amended complaint. If he does not amend by then, the action will be dismissed with prejudice as to those defendants.
The detailed version
- Strachn v. NYPD · No. 1:19-cv-10212
- James Oetken
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
Kawahn Strachn brought this pro se action based on his arrest and hours-long detention. He alleged that NYPD Officer Gomez arrested him during a violent interaction in a Bronx subway station, that Lieutenant Edmonds watched, and that Officer Railyng Frias later booked and processed him. Strachn also alleged that he was not read his Miranda rights. The complaint named the City of New York, the NYPD, Gomez, Edmonds, and Frias as defendants, although Gomez and Edmonds had not been served when the opinion was issued.
The City of New York and Frias moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it failed to state a claim. Strachn did not oppose the motion, even after the court extended his deadline and warned that it would consider the motion unopposed. The court nevertheless reviewed the complaint's legal sufficiency rather than dismissing solely because Strachn failed to respond.
Legal standard
For a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they contain enough factual content to support a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable. The court also construes a pro se complaint liberally, but the complaint must still allege facts supporting each element of a claim.
Analysis
Claims against the City. Strachn brought constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To impose municipal liability under that statute, a plaintiff must allege an official policy or custom that caused the denial of a constitutional right. The court found that Strachn alleged neither a City policy or custom nor that any individual defendant acted under one. The constitutional claims against the City therefore failed.
The court applied the same policy-or-custom requirement to Strachn's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. Those statutory claims against the City also failed because the complaint did not allege a municipal policy or custom.
Claims against Officer Frias. A § 1983 damages claim requires the defendant's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that the complaint identified Frias only as the officer who booked and processed Strachn after the arrest. It did not allege that Frias participated in the arrest, knew the circumstances leading to it, or otherwise played a role in the alleged constitutional violation. The court also found no allegation that Frias was personally involved in a statutory violation or conspiracy. The constitutional and statutory claims against Frias therefore failed.
Leave to amend
Because Strachn was proceeding without a lawyer and the court determined that the complaint might be corrected, it granted him leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed within 60 days of the opinion and order, replace rather than supplement the existing complaint, and include all claims and facts he wanted the court to consider, including each defendant's specific alleged actions or omissions.
Disposition
The court granted the City of New York and Frias's motion to dismiss. It granted Strachn leave to amend within 60 days. The order states that if he did not file an amended complaint by that deadline, the action would be dismissed with prejudice as to the moving defendants.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.