Mckenzie v. City Of New York

Background

Cecil McKenzie sued the City of New York and New York Police Department officers Marquis Cross, Jose Calle-Palomeque, and Robert Zevon. The opinion states that McKenzie initially had a lawyer, but the court allowed that lawyer to withdraw, and McKenzie proceeded without a lawyer. The court construed his claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials. The claims alleged excessive force and malicious prosecution.

The defendants moved for summary judgment. A magistrate judge, Judge Gorenstein, recommended granting the motion. The recommendation explained that the parties had fourteen days to file objections, but neither party objected. Judge Caproni therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record.

Excessive-force claims

The excessive-force claims concerned four groups of alleged actions: Detective Cross tackling McKenzie; Cross placing McKenzie in a headlock or chokehold and punching him; Officer Calle-Palomeque holding McKenzie’s arms; and Officer Zevon throwing or slamming McKenzie to the ground at the precinct.

The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s standard for whether force used during an arrest was reasonable. It accepted McKenzie’s version of disputed facts for purposes of summary judgment, including his account that he was placed in a headlock and punched. Even under that approach, the court agreed that the force used in the first three groups of actions was reasonable because McKenzie testified that he was trying to flee and continued trying to flee as the officers increased their use of force. For the alleged incident involving Zevon, the court agreed that McKenzie had not connected the alleged throwing or slamming to his injuries. The court therefore dismissed the excessive-force claims.

Malicious-prosecution claim

McKenzie’s malicious-prosecution claim concerned the reason for his arrest. The opinion states that two defendants allegedly saw him make sexual gestures toward a female subway passenger. McKenzie claimed that Detective Cross coerced the passenger to give a statement and testify at trial. McKenzie was convicted of persistent sexual abuse in state court, and the opinion states that his conviction had not been vacated or overturned on appeal.

The court held that the claim failed as a matter of law because a malicious-prosecution claim under New York tort law requires the plaintiff to have prevailed in the underlying proceeding, among other elements. The court therefore dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim.

Claims against the City

The court stated that a municipality may be liable under Section 1983 only when a constitutional violation was caused by the municipality’s custom, policy, or practice. Because the court dismissed all of McKenzie’s claims that his rights had been violated, it concluded that his claims against the City also failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

Judge Caproni found no clear error in Judge Gorenstein’s recommendation, adopted the recommendation in full, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The court also stated that McKenzie’s failure to object to the recommendation precluded appellate review. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.