Rodriguez v. City of New York

Background

Giovanni Rodriguez, who performs as “King Karrot,” sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and several police officers. He alleged that, after he was shot in May 2017, officers questioned him, took his clothing and cellphone, collected a DNA sample, and later caused his information to be entered into a gang database and the NYPD’s Criminal Group List. He also alleged that officers told media members, concert venues, and promoters that he was affiliated with a gang, causing him to be removed from two performance lineups.

Rodriguez’s Second Amended Complaint asserted federal constitutional claims and state-law claims, including claims concerning due process, freedom of speech, searches and seizures, defamation, interference with contracts, emotional distress, negligence, and New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(c), which seeks judgment based on the pleadings. Rodriguez asked the court to change the scope of a settlement release he had signed or, alternatively, to set aside the judgment in the earlier related proceeding.

The settlement release

The release was part of a settlement in an earlier related lawsuit against the City and its employees. Rodriguez received $30,000 and released “any and all liability, claims, or rights of action alleging a violation of [his] civil rights and any and all related state law claims” that existed through the date of the release, January 12, 2018. The court found that the release plainly covered the City and its police-officer employees, even though some officers in this case had not personally signed it.

The court rejected Rodriguez’s arguments that the defendants had waived the release defense, that the release was ambiguous, and that it applied only to the claims in the earlier related proceeding. The court held that Rodriguez and his counsel had sufficient notice of the defense, that the release’s language was unambiguous, and that the release covered civil-rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the relevant conduct for the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims occurred before January 12, 2018, the court held those claims were released.

First Amendment claims

The court treated Rodriguez’s First Amendment theories separately. His claim based on canceled performances in 2017 was also covered by the release. His other theory alleged that his speech was chilled because he did not know who else was listed in the gang database. The court found that this allegation was conclusory and did not explain how the listing caused an actual or threatened injury. It therefore held that Rodriguez lacked standing—the required concrete and traceable injury to bring the claim—and that the allegation also failed to state a claim.

Requests to change the release or earlier judgment

The court denied Rodriguez’s request to reform the release, meaning to rewrite its terms. It held that he had not shown a mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence and that his personal understanding of the release could not override its clear language. The court also denied his request under Rule 60(b)(6) to vacate the earlier judgment, finding that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that relief.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Rodriguez’s cross-motion. After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims that might otherwise survive the release. It did not address the merits of those state-law claims. The court dismissed Rodriguez’s complaint in its entirety without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered the order on November 16, 2021.