Price v. Simmons

Background

Kelly Price brought this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against government actors for violations of constitutional rights. The operative pleading was her Fifth Amended Complaint. She sued the City of New York, ten City employees, and two employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department.

Price’s allegations included malicious prosecution, denial of public services, false arrest, First Amendment violations, and other constitutional and state-law claims. She alleged that District Attorney’s Office members, New York City Police Department officers, and other City officials worked together to label her a “fabricator” and deny her police assistance and support for domestic-violence victims. She alleged that this effort was intended to protect her former partner, Raheem Powell, from her accusations of abuse.

Earlier in the case, the court dismissed most claims as time-barred, protected by prosecutorial immunity, or insufficiently pleaded. After later amendments and a 2018 ruling on a motion to dismiss, the claims remaining included a malicious-prosecution claim against Detective Linda Simmons and the City, false-arrest claims against City police officers, and false-arrest, excessive-force, and malicious-prosecution claims against the MTA defendants.

Evidence and prior claims

At a November 5, 2020 telephone conference, Price presented information about two cell phones that had been held by the District Attorney’s Office for nearly nine years. According to the information presented, the phones contained evidence supporting her allegations of abuse by Powell and undermining false-reporting charges against her. Price also presented a forensic examination indicating that someone in the District Attorney’s Office had attempted to delete evidence from the phones after they were returned.

The court stated that this information suggested that members of the District Attorney’s Office may have interfered with Price’s ability to pursue justice, possibly to protect Powell. The court expected any discoverable material held by the District Attorney’s Office or a current defendant to be produced without delay.

The court nevertheless concluded that the new information did not undermine earlier dismissals based on the three-year statute of limitations or failure to state a legally sufficient claim. In particular, the court held that Price’s substantive due-process claim remained insufficient. The court explained that the government’s failure to protect someone from private violence generally does not violate due process, and that Price had not shown that placing her on an alleged “do not serve” list increased the danger to her.

Order

The court treated the Fifth Amended Complaint as the operative pleading and stated that discovery was continuing. Because Price said discovery was incomplete, the court ordered her to submit a letter by December 30, 2020, identifying the remaining discovery issues. She could also address settlement discussions with the defendants, including the MTA defendants. The defendants were ordered to respond by January 11, 2021, and to send a copy of the order to counsel for the District Attorney’s Office by December 4, 2020.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not enter a judgment on the remaining claims in this order and did not grant or deny a motion. The order addressed discovery and reaffirmed that certain previously dismissed claims would not be revived by the newly presented information.