Brown v. New York City Police Department

Background

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Brown’s First Amended Complaint against three police officers, three correction officers, and the City of New York. The court had allowed Brown to amend claims concerning allegedly discriminatory policing, an allegedly unlawful strip search and drug test, meals consistent with his religious faith, and medical needs. It denied permission to amend Brown’s false-arrest, property-deprivation, and municipal-liability claims because further amendment would be futile.

Brown, who was representing himself, filed a Second Amended Complaint that reasserted all of his earlier claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court also granted Brown’s request to file a supplemental opposition to that motion.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally requires a court to follow its earlier decisions in the same case unless there is a compelling reason to reconsider them. The court found that Brown had only disagreed with the earlier order and had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It therefore concluded that Brown’s attempt to replead or refashion his false-arrest, property-deprivation, and municipal-liability claims was futile, and those claims had to be dismissed.

The court then considered the claims Brown had been allowed to replead. It found that the Second Amended Complaint added very few facts and mostly repeated legal conclusions.

For the equal-protection claim concerning discriminatory policing, Brown relied on New York City’s former stop-and-frisk policy. The court said that policy had ended in 2013, while Brown’s arrest occurred in 2015, and that Brown still had not alleged facts showing that his arrest was racially motivated or that he was treated differently from similarly situated people.

The court also dismissed Brown’s Fourth Amendment claims concerning the strip search and drug test. Regarding the strip search, Brown added that it was conducted for the purpose of humiliation but did not provide specific facts or circumstances supporting that assertion. Regarding the drug test, Brown alleged only that it was unreasonable and did not explain why he was tested, how he was forced to submit, or what bodily fluids he had to provide.

Finally, the court dismissed the claims that Brown was denied meals consistent with his religious faith and was denied medical attention. The court found that Brown added no facts showing that the individual defendants were personally involved. In particular, he did not allege that Captain Firsov created or could change the medical-clearance requirement for vegan meals, or that Officer Dail was responsible for administering his medications or deciding his allergy treatment.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 70 and 79 and to close the case. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.