Lewis v. Westchester County

Background

Theodore Lewis sued Westchester County, the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Commissioner Thomas Gleason, Police Officer Richard LePore, Jr., and John Doe officers under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, along with New York state law. Lewis alleged that on August 19, 2017, officers stopped a U-Haul in which he was riding, questioned him, searched its rear compartment, found a firearm and an instrument alleged to be a forged instrument in a bag Lewis said he did not own or possess, and then handcuffed, searched, arrested, and charged him. He alleged that he remained in the Westchester County jail until November 17, 2017, and that all charges were dismissed and sealed on March 22, 2019.

The pending matters were defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Lewis’s cross-motion for leave to amend.

Excessive Force and Cruel-and-Unusual-Punishment Claims

The court dismissed Lewis’s Eighth Amendment claim because the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment applies after conviction, while Lewis alleged force during his arrest before conviction. To the extent Lewis based that claim on allegedly excessive bail, the court also held that defendants were not personally involved in setting bail.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. Lewis alleged only that he was handcuffed, searched, arrested, and charged. He did not allege that the handcuffs were unreasonably tight, that he complained about them, or that he suffered an injury. The court therefore found no plausible allegation that the force was objectively unreasonable.

False Arrest and False Imprisonment

The court dismissed Lewis’s federal false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims because the allegations showed probable cause to arrest. The court explained that an allegedly unlawful vehicle stop or search did not prevent officers from relying on evidence obtained during that search to establish probable cause in a civil false-arrest case.

The court also applied New York’s automobile presumption. Under that statute, the presence of a firearm in a vehicle can be presumptive evidence that all occupants possessed it, unless circumstances establish a statutory exception. The court found that Lewis’s allegations that the firearm was in a bag he did not own or possess, and that officers knew he did not possess it, did not plausibly establish an exception or negate probable cause.

Malicious Prosecution

The court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim because Lewis alleged only that the charges were dismissed and sealed. He did not explain the basis for that termination. The court held that a bare allegation of dismissal does not adequately show that the criminal proceeding ended in a manner indicating the accused’s innocence. Because of that conclusion, the court did not decide whether the automobile presumption supplied sufficient probable cause for the malicious-prosecution claim.

Failure to Intervene and Supervisory Liability

The court dismissed the failure-to-intervene and supervisory-liability claims. A failure-to-intervene claim requires an underlying constitutional violation, and supervisory liability under Section 1983 requires personal involvement in such a violation. Because the court found that Lewis had not plausibly alleged excessive force, false arrest, or false imprisonment, the derivative claims also failed.

Conspiracy

The court dismissed the Section 1985 conspiracy claim. Lewis alleged that the individual defendants conspired to violate his rights and that Officer LePore acted in a discriminatory manner based on race. The court found those allegations conclusory and lacking facts showing an agreement among the defendants or race-based or other class-based discriminatory motive.

Municipal and Department Claims

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Westchester County. Lewis had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation, and his allegations of policies, customs, training failures, and discriminatory practices did not identify a specific municipal policy or custom or facts showing a widespread pattern.

The court also dismissed Section 1983 claims against officers in their official capacities because those claims are treated as claims against the governmental entity. It dismissed all claims against the Westchester County Department of Public Safety because, under the court’s stated New York-law rule, a municipal department is not a separate legal entity from the municipality for this purpose.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any New York claims Lewis might be asserting.

The court denied Lewis’s cross-motion for leave to amend because he had already amended once, submitted no proposed second amended complaint, and did not identify additional facts that would cure the pleading defects. The court nevertheless allowed him, by September 22, 2021, to file a formal motion for leave to amend accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint and a redline comparing it with the first amended complaint. The court stated that if he did not do so, it would enter judgment and close the case. The conclusion states: “Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED” and “Plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to amend is DENIED.”