Walsh v. City of New York

Background

Martin Walsh sued the City of New York and New York City police officers under federal civil-rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under New York law. He alleged that, after a bicyclist named Francisco Bruno, Jr. threatened him, Walsh called 911 and reported the incident. Officers arrived, arrested Walsh, took him to a precinct and Central Booking, and released him after his arraignment. The criminal case against him was dismissed on December 19, 2018.

Walsh alleged that the arresting officers lacked probable cause, ignored his complaints that his handcuffs were too tight, fabricated an eyewitness account, coerced Bruno into making false statements, and retaliated against him because of an earlier lawsuit against the City and certain officers. He also alleged that officers treated him differently from Bruno because Walsh is white and Bruno is believed to be Hispanic or Latino.

Documents Considered

On the motion to dismiss, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion. The court considered a certificate showing that the criminal charges were dismissed, but declined to consider telephone-call records and the criminal complaint because Walsh had not relied on those documents in preparing the complaint and their accuracy was disputed. The court also declined to consider an additional police report submitted with the defendants’ reply papers.

Federal Claims Against the Defendants

The court denied dismissal of Walsh’s false-arrest claim. Based on the complaint, the court could not conclude that the officers had probable cause to arrest Walsh for harassment or assault. The court likewise denied dismissal of the malicious-prosecution claim because it could not determine at this stage that probable cause existed.

The court rejected the individual defendants’ qualified-immunity defense at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Qualified immunity can protect public officials from personal liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right or when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct was lawful. The court held that the complaint raised unresolved questions about what the arresting officers knew, including allegations that they fabricated evidence and coerced false statements.

The court denied dismissal of Walsh’s First Amendment retaliation claim. It held that filing the earlier lawsuit could qualify as protected activity because that lawsuit concerned generalized police misconduct, and that Walsh adequately alleged injury from the alleged retaliation.

The court granted dismissal of the federal excessive-force claim. Although Walsh alleged that the officers ignored his complaints about excessively tight handcuffs for more than twenty minutes, the court held that his allegations of temporary and generalized pain did not state a legally sufficient claim.

The court denied dismissal of the malicious-abuse-of-process claim. Although an alleged desire to harm Walsh would not by itself establish the required collateral objective, the court held that Walsh’s allegation that the officers acted to curry favor with other officers could plausibly establish such an objective.

The court denied dismissal of Walsh’s fair-trial claim. Walsh alleged that officers created false information, made up an eyewitness, coerced Bruno into making false accusations, sent that information to prosecutors, and deprived Walsh of his liberty before his arraignment and release. The court held that these allegations plausibly stated a claim even though Walsh did not proceed to trial.

The court granted dismissal of the federal conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. It held that Walsh had not adequately alleged when or how the officers agreed to act together. The court also held that Walsh had not plausibly alleged the racial or class-based discriminatory motive required for a claim under Section 1985, so the related Section 1986 claim also failed.

The court granted dismissal of the municipal-liability claim against the City. Walsh had not alleged sufficient facts showing either that the City failed to train its employees with the required deliberate indifference or that a persistent and widespread City practice caused the alleged constitutional violations.

The court denied dismissal of the equal-protection claim to the extent it was based on selective treatment motivated by malicious or bad-faith intent to injure Walsh. The court held that Walsh plausibly alleged that he and Bruno were roughly equivalent in the relevant circumstances but that Walsh was arrested while Bruno was not. The court granted dismissal of the race- or national-origin-based equal-protection theories because the complaint did not allege facts showing that race or national origin influenced the officers’ actions. The court also granted dismissal of Walsh’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because he did not allege facts showing intentional racial discrimination.

The court denied dismissal of Walsh’s claims concerning an unlawful search and seizure, false imprisonment, and failure to intervene because the defendants had not specifically challenged those claims.

State-Law Claims and Claims Against Certain Officers

The court granted dismissal of Walsh’s state-law claims without prejudice to replead. Walsh had not alleged in the complaint that he complied with New York’s notice-of-claim requirements.

The court dismissed the claims against Jason Lunsford, Jhonny Milfort, Catherine Doran, and Michael Clark. It held that the complaint did not allege specific facts showing these defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations and instead relied on general allegations that they influenced or conspired with the arresting officers.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted dismissal of some claims without prejudice to replead, granted dismissal of other claims, and denied dismissal of the claims identified above. Walsh could file an amended complaint by April 26, 2021. Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 28.