Henry v. The City of New York

Background

Levar T. Henry, representing himself, sued the City of New York and police officers Gary Perez, Randys Figuereo, Carlos Pimentel, Carlos Thomas, Juan Carrero, and Christian Hernandez. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors, and under New York law. His claims included false arrest, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, excessive force, municipal liability, and claims concerning alleged constitutional violations during his arrest and search.

The officers testified that they observed Henry engage in what they believed was a drug transaction, stopped him, and recovered crack cocaine. Henry pleaded guilty in New York State Court to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and received a sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment and two years of post-release supervision. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Henry alleged that officers repeatedly slammed his head into a wall, causing a forehead laceration, and that the strip search involved anal penetration that caused significant pain. The medical records documented his forehead injury and complaints of pain, including pain in his anal area.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is granted when the record shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although Henry did not respond to the motion, the court reviewed whether the defendants’ factual statements were supported by the record and considered the special consideration given to people representing themselves.

Claims on Which Summary Judgment Was Granted

The court granted summary judgment on Henry’s false-arrest claim. It held that the officers had probable cause because they observed what they believed was a drug transaction and later recovered cocaine. The court also relied on Henry’s guilty plea and the affirmance of his conviction.

The court granted summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim because the defendants had probable cause, the criminal case did not end in Henry’s favor, and Henry had not adequately alleged malice. The court also held that the claim was barred by the rule that generally prevents a person from seeking damages for conduct that would undermine an existing conviction.

The court granted summary judgment on the fabrication-of-evidence claim. It found that the claim was barred by Henry’s guilty plea and affirmed conviction, that Henry admitted possessing crack cocaine on the date of the arrest, and that medical records also reported cocaine recovered at the hospital.

The court granted summary judgment on Henry’s municipal-liability claim against the City. Henry alleged that the City had a policy or practice of constitutional violations and failed to train, supervise, investigate, or discipline officers. The court held that he produced no evidence supporting a municipal policy, custom, or deliberate indifference.

The court granted summary judgment on Henry’s remaining constitutional claims, including claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that these claims were conclusory, lacked factual or evidentiary support, or were otherwise precluded by the guilty plea and affirmed conviction.

The court also granted summary judgment on Henry’s state-law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and negligence. It found no genuine factual dispute supporting the first three claims and no factual or evidentiary support for negligence.

Claims That Remain

The court denied summary judgment on Henry’s Section 1983 excessive-force claim. The parties gave conflicting accounts of how Henry and the officers ended up on the ground, whether Henry was resisting arrest, how his forehead injury occurred, and how much force the officers used. The court held that it could not resolve those disputes on summary judgment.

The court also denied summary judgment on Henry’s state-law assault and battery claims. The parties disputed whether the strip search was completed, whether Henry’s clothing was removed, and whether anal penetration occurred. Henry’s complaints to hospital staff and the recovery of additional cocaine after the search created factual issues that the court could not decide at this stage.

Lieutenant Hernandez

The court granted the motion on all claims against Lieutenant Hernandez. The court found that Hernandez authorized the strip search after officers recovered multiple bags of cocaine, that the authorization was supported by probable cause, and that Henry did not allege that Hernandez personally participated in the search. The court therefore found insufficient personal involvement for the Section 1983 claims and no viable state-law claims against him.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl concluded that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied with respect to Henry’s Section 1983 excessive-force claim and state-law assault and battery claims. The motion was granted with respect to all other claims, including all claims against Lieutenant Hernandez. The Clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.