Fraser v. City Of New York

Background

After an altercation on October 21, 2014, New York Police Department narcotics officers arrested Jawaun Fraser for robbery. Fraser alleged that Undercover Officer Number 84, Matthew Regina, and Jason Deltoro created a false account of the incident, prepared false supporting documents, and gave false testimony. A jury found Fraser not guilty of second-degree robbery but guilty of the lesser offense of third-degree robbery. He served approximately two years in custody.

In a post-conviction proceeding, the New York County Supreme Court vacated Fraser’s conviction after finding that the State had failed to disclose lawsuits involving members of the narcotics team. Those lawsuits allegedly included claims that officers had fabricated evidence, made false statements, and made unlawful arrests. The State did not retry Fraser, and Fraser later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

Fraser then sued the three officers and the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint asserted claims against the officers for denial of liberty and due process, malicious prosecution, and denial of a fair trial based on an alleged violation of the evidence-disclosure rule recognized in Brady v. Maryland. It also asserted municipal-liability claims against the City based on alleged policies of the New York Police Department and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Motion and standard

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, a procedural motion asking whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on the pleadings. They challenged only Counts III through V, which concerned the alleged Brady violation and the City’s alleged policies. They argued that the lawsuits were not legally “suppressed” because they were publicly available and that police officers had no duty to disclose unrelated civil lawsuits to prosecutors.

The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court assumed well-pleaded facts were true and asked whether the complaint alleged a plausible claim. The court did not decide the ultimate truth of Fraser’s allegations.

Claims against the individual officers

The court explained that a Brady violation generally requires favorable evidence, suppression by the State, and resulting prejudice. The court also noted that the defendants were not parties to Fraser’s criminal case, so the state court’s finding of a Brady violation did not automatically resolve whether the officers or the City were liable under § 1983.

The court rejected the argument that publicly filed lawsuits can never be suppressed for Brady purposes. The relevant question was whether Fraser or his lawyer knew, or should have known, the essential facts that would have allowed them to use the lawsuits. Whether Fraser actually knew or should have known about the lawsuits was a factual issue that could not be resolved on the pleadings.

The court also rejected the argument that police officers have no disclosure obligation concerning civil lawsuits against themselves. Although officers do not disclose evidence directly to the defense, the court held that officers who are key prosecution witnesses must provide prosecutors with potentially favorable or impeachment evidence in their possession. Lawsuits alleging that those officers falsified evidence or testified falsely could bear on their credibility and therefore could qualify as impeachment evidence.

The court concluded that Fraser adequately alleged that the officers intentionally failed to disclose relevant lawsuits to the prosecutor, that the prosecutor consequently failed to disclose them to the defense, and that the nondisclosure harmed Fraser’s trial. The court therefore denied the motion as to Count III.

Municipal-liability claims against New York City

The court held that Fraser also plausibly stated claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Municipal liability requires a plaintiff to allege a municipal policy or custom that caused the deprivation of a constitutional right; the City cannot be held liable solely because it employed the officers.

As to Count IV, Fraser alleged that the New York Police Department lacked an adequate policy requiring officers to disclose lawsuits and other information that could impeach prosecution witnesses. He also alleged that the department knew officers faced repeated misconduct allegations but failed to require those disclosures. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage.

As to Count V, Fraser alleged that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had a policy of not asking police witnesses about civil lawsuits or misconduct allegations unrelated to the prosecution. The court held that New York City could potentially be liable for such a policy and that Fraser plausibly alleged that the policy caused the alleged Brady violation. The court emphasized that prosecutors have a duty to seek favorable evidence known to police investigators, including evidence bearing on the credibility of key police witnesses.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon denied defendants’ collective motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court directed the Clerk to remove the motion at Docket No. 32 from the list of pending motions. The opinion did not make a final determination that Fraser would prevail on the claims.