Medina v. City Of New York

Background

Tomas Medina sued the City of New York and New York City Police Department officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue government officials for constitutional violations, and under New York state law. He alleged that officers Fabio Nunez and Shanee Hansler confronted him near a car dealership late at night because of music, that Nunez pushed him against a car, used a chokehold, and shocked him with a Taser multiple times, and that other officers failed to stop the force. Medina also alleged that officers pulled his pants down during a search, left them down while he was taken into the precinct and handcuffed, arrested him, and charged him with several offenses. He denied allegations that he had assaulted officers. The criminal charges were later resolved as described in the opinion.

Medina asserted federal claims based on excessive force, false arrest, and an allegedly improper search. He also sought to hold the City liable for an alleged policy or practice involving chokeholds and Taser use, inadequate training or supervision, and inadequate investigation or discipline. His state claims included assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. The City Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. Nunez filed a separate motion. The City Defendants also sought sanctions against Medina’s counsel, and Medina sought sanctions against the City’s Corporation Counsel.

Rulings on the City Defendants’ Motion

The court granted the City Defendants’ motion as to Medina’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court held that Medina’s past alleged injury, continued outdoor activities, statistical allegations, and fear of future police encounters did not establish a sufficiently immediate and likely future injury. Without that showing, he lacked standing to seek prospective equitable relief.

The court denied the motion as to Medina’s claim that the City was liable for a municipal policy or practice under Monell v. Department of Social Services. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court found that allegations involving lawsuits, Civilian Complaint Review Board reports, news reports, and other investigations plausibly suggested a widespread or persistent practice involving improper chokeholds and Taser use. The same allegations plausibly supported a theory that the City was deliberately indifferent by failing to train or supervise officers adequately.

The court denied the motion as to claims against Commissioner James O’Neill and Chief of Department Terrance Monahan, at least regarding excessive force. Medina plausibly alleged that they knew about the alleged pattern of improper chokehold use and allowed it to continue, and that this alleged custom could have foreseeably contributed to Nunez’s conduct.

The court dismissed Medina’s federal claims against Hekmatullah Mukhtarzada, Jose A. Gomez, and William J. Gallagher. The allegations involving these defendants concerned conduct after the alleged force, search, and arrest, including investigation and alleged efforts to cover up misconduct. The court found that Medina had not plausibly alleged that their conduct caused the constitutional injuries. The opinion states that the City Defendants did not seek dismissal of any state claims against these three defendants, so those state claims were not dismissed on this motion.

The court denied dismissal of the false-arrest claims. The defendants argued that qualified immunity applied because there was at least arguable probable cause. The court held that the complaint did not establish that defense clearly from its face. The complaint did not specify facts such as the music’s decibel level, the surrounding noise, or the officers’ distance from the music. The court also held that, under the allegations, refusing to provide identification and walking away did not independently establish probable cause for obstructing governmental administration.

The court also denied dismissal of the improper-search claim. The alleged search involved pulling Medina’s pants down outside the precinct, making him walk into the precinct with his pants around his ankles, and leaving them down while he was handcuffed in a public corridor. The court held that these allegations plausibly suggested that the manner of the search was unreasonable, even if a search incident to arrest could otherwise have been permitted.

The court granted the City Defendants’ motion as to Medina’s intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. It concluded that the negligent claim was based on the same alleged intentional conduct underlying the assault and excessive-force claims. It also found that the intentional claim did not provide enough factual detail to plausibly show severe emotional distress.

Rulings on Nunez’s Motion

The court denied Nunez’s motion as to Medina’s federal claims, including the false-arrest claim, for the same reasons it rejected the qualified-immunity argument at the pleading stage. The court granted Nunez’s motion as to Medina’s state-law assault, battery, and false-imprisonment claims, but dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court explained that the claims appeared either time-barred under the one-year period Nunez invoked or barred because Medina had not alleged that he served the required notice of claim. The court stated that the claims could potentially be restored if Medina supplied proof of a timely notice of claim or rebutted the argument that a notice was required.

The court dismissed Medina’s abuse-of-process claim against Nunez with prejudice because the alleged purpose of bringing criminal charges—to distract from Nunez’s alleged use of force and protect his employment—was pleaded too conclusorily. The court also dismissed Medina’s intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Nunez with prejudice. Nunez’s motion was denied in all other respects.

Sanctions and Disposition

The court denied both sanctions motions. It found that Medina’s arguments for equitable relief were not frivolous even though the court rejected them, and it found that Medina had not supplied evidence or a nonconclusory explanation showing that the City’s sanctions motion was filed for an improper purpose.

The final order states that the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, Nunez’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and both sanctions motions were denied. The parties were ordered to submit a joint letter about the status of discovery within one week of the order.