Columna v. Gomez

Background

Darwin Columna, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, Police Officer Genner Gomez, and Detective Pedro Romero under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state or local officials for constitutional violations. The case arose from Columna’s April 26, 2016 arrest for possession of a bag of PCP. Columna alleged that Gomez arrested him after another person claimed the bag, and that Romero was involved in the arrest. He also alleged excessive force during transportation to the precinct, the cutting of his rosary during processing, destruction of property, retaliation, and other state-law claims.

The criminal charges were dismissed on October 19, 2017, based on New York’s speedy-trial law. Columna filed this federal case on April 26, 2019. Defendants moved for summary judgment—judgment without a trial when no genuine dispute of important fact requires a jury’s decision—on all claims except the false-arrest claim against Gomez.

Treatment of Columna’s Submissions

Defendants asked the court to disregard Columna’s factual counterstatement and to treat several claims as abandoned because his opposition did not directly address them. The court declined both requests. It explained that self-represented litigants receive special consideration and that it would interpret Columna’s pleadings to raise the strongest possible arguments. But the court also stated that unsupported assertions could not defeat summary judgment where the record did not show a genuine factual dispute.

Claims on Which Summary Judgment Was Granted

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Columna’s § 1983 excessive-force and religious-freedom claims. Those claims concerned conduct by unidentified officers or other officers during transportation and at the precinct. The court found no evidence that Gomez or Romero personally participated in the alleged conduct. Personal involvement is required for damages under § 1983, and the record showed that neither Gomez nor Romero drove Columna to the precinct, grabbed his finger, ordered the rosary cut, or participated in the tasering.

The court also granted summary judgment on any claim against the City based on a municipal policy or custom, commonly called a Monell claim. Columna did not identify a City policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation. The court found that the precinct procedure against allowing detainees to keep strings that could be used for hanging themselves was related to a legitimate safety interest, and the record did not show that the rosary’s removal resulted from an unconstitutional City policy or custom.

The court granted summary judgment on Columna’s property claim concerning the cutting of his rosary. It held that a state employee’s intentional destruction of property generally does not violate the federal Due Process Clause when state law provides an adequate remedy after the deprivation. The court also granted summary judgment on Columna’s other state-law claims. Columna did not plead or establish proper service of a notice of claim under New York law, and the court further held that the claims were untimely because the case was filed more than one year and ninety days after the relevant events or dismissal of the criminal charges.

Claims That Survived Summary Judgment

The court denied Officer Gomez’s motion for summary judgment on Columna’s federal malicious-prosecution claim. Under Second Circuit precedent, dismissal on speedy-trial grounds generally creates a presumption that the criminal prosecution ended in the plaintiff’s favor. The court found that Gomez offered no evidence rebutting that presumption. The court did not decide that Columna had proved malicious prosecution; it held that the claim could proceed because a genuine factual dispute remained.

The court also denied Romero’s motion for summary judgment on the false-arrest claim. Although Gomez handcuffed and arrested Columna, the record showed that Romero was present, signed the criminal complaint, was identified as the arresting officer on an arraignment form, and may have approved or endorsed the arrest. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Romero directly or indirectly involved. The court did not consider Romero’s fellow-officer-rule argument because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief.

The First Amendment retaliation claim against Gomez and Romero also survived. The defendants did not address that claim or move for summary judgment on it. Columna’s false-arrest claim against Gomez was not included in defendants’ motion and therefore also remained for trial.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Columna’s federal § 1983 claims for excessive force, destruction of property, municipal policy or custom liability, and religious freedom, as well as his other state-law claims. The court denied the motion as to the federal malicious-prosecution claim against Gomez, the false-arrest claim against Romero, and the First Amendment retaliation claim against Gomez and Romero. The false-arrest claim against Gomez, which was not the subject of the motion, was also to proceed to trial. The court directed the parties to appear for a telephonic pretrial conference on April 20, 2022.