Lurch v. The City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lurch v. City of New York, Judge Caproni granted the City’s dismissal motion, dismissed claims against unknown officers and workers, and allowed an excessive-force amendment.
Robert Derek Lurch Jr.; the City of New York; and the unknown New York City police officers, emergency medical services workers, and emergency service unit workers named as defendants.
What happened
In Robert Derek Lurch Jr. v. City of New York, Robert Derek Lurch Jr., representing himself, sued the City and unknown city employees under a federal civil-rights law. He claimed false arrest and failure to protect him from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation because Lurch filed no objections after receiving it and an extended deadline. The court found that information available to police established probable cause for Lurch’s November 25, 2019 arrest under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, so his false-arrest and search-and-seizure claims could not proceed.
Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the recommendation in full, granted the City’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Lurch’s claims against the unknown police officers, emergency medical workers, and emergency service workers. The court allowed Lurch to amend his complaint by April 28, 2021, to add a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Lurch v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11254
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
Robert Derek Lurch Jr. brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state or local actors. He sued the City of New York and unknown emergency medical services workers, New York City Police Department officers, and emergency service unit workers. He asserted claims for false arrest and for failure to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The City moved to dismiss the complaint. Magistrate Judge Wang issued a report and recommendation advising that the City’s motion be granted, the claims against the individual defendants be dismissed, and Lurch be allowed to amend the complaint to add a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. Lurch received the report and recommendation and an extended deadline for objections, but he filed no objections.
Court’s Analysis
Because no timely objections were filed, Judge Caproni reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error. It held that the judicially noticeable information and the arrest report established probable cause for Lurch’s November 25, 2019 arrest under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41. Probable cause is a reasonable basis, based on known information, to believe an arrest is legally justified. Because probable cause existed, the court concluded that Lurch’s false-arrest claim and his claim concerning protection against unreasonable searches and seizures failed. The existence of probable cause also required dismissal of the claims against the unknown individual defendants.
The opinion discusses a close question about whether the court could consider a statement from Lurch’s complaint in a prior related proceeding. Judge Caproni stated that it was unnecessary to resolve that question because the arrest report itself was sufficient to establish probable cause.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full. It granted the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint and dismissed Lurch’s claims against the unknown New York City police officers, emergency medical services workers, and emergency service unit workers. It granted Lurch leave to amend his complaint, if he chose, to add a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. The amended complaint was due by April 28, 2021.
The court also ruled that Lurch’s failure to object to the report and recommendation precluded appellate review. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the City’s motion and mail the order to Lurch.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.