Hernandez v. City of New York

Background

Angel Hernandez and Ana Garcia sued the City of New York, Manuel Siles, Omar Habib, and Diego Beekman Mutual Housing. The plaintiffs proceeded without lawyers. They alleged that six people attacked them at their apartment complex on March 29, 2018; that Officers Siles and Habib waited five to ten minutes before intervening; that the officers arrested Hernandez even though he was acting in self-defense; and that they arrested him, but no other participant, because he is Dominican.

The record included security-camera video showing Hernandez punch a woman, causing her to fall, and then kick her. The opinion states that the officers intervened within seconds of arriving. They arrested Hernandez for disorderly conduct. The charges against him were later dismissed. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Rulings on Diego Beekman

The court construed the second amended complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Diego Beekman. Section 1983 generally requires conduct by a state actor—someone acting for the government or whose conduct is legally attributable to the government.

The court held that Diego Beekman was not a state actor. It was a private company that employed private security guards and reported crimes to the police. The court ruled that calling the police, without more, did not establish state action, government coercion, joint activity with the police, or performance of a function traditionally reserved exclusively to the state. The court therefore granted Diego Beekman’s motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claims.

Rulings on the City and Officers

False arrest. The court granted the City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 false-arrest claim. Probable cause—facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that someone committed a crime—is a complete defense to false arrest. The court found no genuine dispute that the officers saw Hernandez punch and kick the woman. Those facts established probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct and also supported probable cause for other possible offenses. The officers were not required to arrest the other participants as well, and Garcia’s unverified claim that Hernandez acted in self-defense did not eliminate probable cause. The court also discussed qualified immunity, which can protect an officer when the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable or reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Failure to intervene. The court granted summary judgment on the claim that the officers failed to protect the plaintiffs from violence during the fight. As a general rule, the Constitution does not require the government to protect people from private violence. The court found that the special-relationship exception did not apply because Garcia was not in custody during the fight and Hernandez was taken into custody only after the fight was stopped. The court also found no evidence that the officers created or increased the danger, and it held that the video disproved the allegation that they waited five to ten minutes before intervening.

Selective enforcement. The court granted summary judgment on the claim that the officers intentionally enforced the law against Hernandez because of his race. A selective-enforcement claim requires evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated people because of an improper reason, such as intentional racial discrimination. The court found only conclusory allegations and no evidence that the officers knew Hernandez’s background, distinguished it from the backgrounds of other participants, or intentionally singled him out because of race.

Municipal liability. The court granted summary judgment to the City of New York. A municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom caused a constitutional violation; it cannot be held liable merely because it employed the officers. Because the court found no underlying constitutional violation, it found no basis for municipal liability.

State-law claims and final order

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretion to hear related state-law claims—because it had resolved all claims based on federal-question jurisdiction and the opinion identified no other basis for federal jurisdiction.

The court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case, and terminated the pending motions. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.