Mckenzie v. City Of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-06913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mckenzie v. City of New York, Judge Caproni granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed the pro se plaintiff’s federal civil-rights case.
Cecil Mckenzie and the defendants—the City of New York, Marquis Cross, Jose Calle-Palomeque, and Robert Zevon—were affected. The defendants prevailed on summary judgment, and Mckenzie’s case was dismissed.
What happened
In Mckenzie v. City of New York, Cecil Mckenzie sued the City of New York and three individual defendants over alleged constitutional violations involving excessive force and malicious prosecution. The opinion describes Mckenzie as representing himself.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. It agreed that Mckenzie’s filings should be read generously and that his claims could be treated as claims under a federal civil-rights law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Judge Valerie Caproni’s court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The judgment states that the case was closed; it does not specify that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Mckenzie v. City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-06913
- Valerie Caproni
- July 6, 2021
Background
Cecil Mckenzie brought claims against the City of New York, Marquis Cross, Jose Calle-Palomeque, and Robert Zevon. The judgment describes the claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, for alleged violations of Mckenzie’s constitutional rights to be free from excessive force and malicious prosecution. Mckenzie proceeded without a lawyer.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision resolving claims when the court determines that the undisputed record does not require a trial for the moving party to prevail. The judgment states that Judge Gorenstein applied the correct legal standard and properly read Mckenzie’s filings liberally, meaning the court considered the strongest arguments reasonably suggested by those filings.
The court concluded that Mckenzie’s claims were properly construed as § 1983 claims and entered judgment for the defendants. The case was dismissed and closed. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.