Gudanowski v. John Doe, N.Y. State Trooper
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Gudanowski v. Burrell, Judge Briccetti denied both motions to dismiss, allowing the constitutional claims against seven officers to proceed.
Paul T. Gudanowski and the seven named officers. The court's ruling allowed Gudanowski's claims to proceed past the motions-to-dismiss stage and required the defendants to answer the second amended complaint.
What happened
Paul T. Gudanowski sued five New York State troopers and two East Rutherford, New Jersey, police officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that officers used excessive force during his January 2, 2017, arrest and failed to stop one another. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case.
The court rejected the argument that Gudanowski filed his claims too late. It held that his second amended complaint could relate back to his timely original complaint because he had made several efforts to identify the officers and had provided enough details about the incident to alert them that they might be the intended defendants. The court also held that his allegations plausibly described excessive force and failure to intervene. It explained that these claims arise under the Fourth Amendment, not the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied both motions to dismiss. The defendants were ordered to answer the second amended complaint, so the ruling allowed the case to continue but did not decide whether the alleged conduct actually occurred.
The detailed version
- Gudanowski v. John Doe, N.Y. State Trooper · No. 7:20-cv-00111
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 31, 2021
Background
Paul T. Gudanowski brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State Troopers Darryl M. Burrell, Gregory Maxwell, Francisco E. Madera, Andrew T. Bukovinsky, and William R. Payne, and East Rutherford, New Jersey, Police Officers Brian C. Montague and Kevin J. Felten. He alleged that, during an arrest after a two-state car pursuit on January 2, 2017, officers used excessive force against him and failed to intervene to stop the force. He alleged that officers broke a car window, punched him, pulled him from the vehicle, slammed him to the ground, and battered him while he was not resisting. He also alleged that he was taken to a hospital for his injuries.
Gudanowski originally filed the case while proceeding without a lawyer and identified the defendants only as John Doe officers. The court later directed the New York Attorney General's Office to help identify the officers. After Gudanowski retained counsel, he filed a second amended complaint naming the seven defendants.
Motions and Timeliness
The New York Defendants moved to dismiss only on statute-of-limitations grounds. The New Jersey Defendants also argued that the second amended complaint did not adequately plead excessive force and failure to intervene. All defendants relied on Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The court determined that the claims were governed by New York's three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. It treated the original complaint as filed when Gudanowski delivered it to prison officials on December 28, 2019, five days before the limitations period expired. The second amended complaint was filed after the period expired, so it was timely only if it related back to the original complaint.
Under the applicable New York procedure, relation back required Gudanowski to show that he exercised due diligence before the limitations period expired and described the unknown defendants in a way that fairly alerted them that they were intended defendants. The court found due diligence based on his sworn account of several efforts to obtain records that might identify the officers, including requests to the New York Attorney General's Office, correctional facilities, a legal-aid organization, and the Bergen County Jail. The court also found the original complaint sufficiently specific because it identified the date and time of the incident, the involved law-enforcement agencies, the presence of a news helicopter, and the involvement of a particular tow truck. The court therefore held that the second amended complaint related back and could not be dismissed as untimely at this stage.
Excessive Force and Failure to Intervene
The court held that the allegations plausibly stated an excessive-force claim against the New Jersey Defendants under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures. The court emphasized that the complaint alleged significant physical force, that Gudanowski was not resisting or refusing instructions, and that he required hospital treatment. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court also held that Gudanowski did not need to identify which officer directly used the force and which officer failed to intervene.
The court likewise held that the allegations plausibly stated a failure-to-intervene claim. Gudanowski alleged that each defendant was near the others, saw the assault, and did not try to stop it. The court treated that claim as arising under the Fourth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth Amendment. It also stated that the Eighth Amendment did not apply because Gudanowski had not been convicted or incarcerated at the time of the incident.
Disposition
The court denied the New York Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the New Jersey Defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants were ordered to answer the second amended complaint by September 14, 2021. The ruling addressed the sufficiency and timeliness of the pleadings; it did not determine whether the alleged excessive force or failure to intervene ultimately occurred.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.