Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn

Background

Anthony F. Debellis, proceeding without a lawyer, sued various defendants, including individual police officers, the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, and New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services disciplinary counsel Eric Hicks. The remaining claims concerned two July 2017 arrests and a September 2018 arrest.

Debellis alleged that the first two arrests were made without probable cause, meaning without sufficient facts to reasonably believe that he had committed a crime. He also alleged that Sergeant James Flynn, Detective Andrew Nash, and other officers searched the home where he resided without a warrant during the second arrest. Finally, he alleged that an unidentified officer sexually assaulted him during the 2018 arrest and that Lieutenant Thomas White witnessed the assault but failed to intervene.

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court considered the factual allegations in Debellis’s operative letter and, where consistent, his earlier filings and opposition papers.

False-arrest claims

The court dismissed both false-arrest claims. Debellis had alleged only in a conclusory way that the arrests lacked probable cause or “tangible evidence.” The court held that his own allegations showed probable cause for both arrests: the first was supported by an accusation from Juan O’Sullivan, whom Debellis described as the person accusing him of the underlying conduct, and the second was supported by Debellis’s identification in a lineup. The court stated that a credible eyewitness statement or lineup identification can establish probable cause when the pleadings do not allege circumstances undermining them.

Unlawful-search claim

The court allowed the unlawful-search claim against Flynn and Nash to proceed. Debellis alleged that Flynn and Nash led officers to his mother’s house, arrested him at the door, and searched the home without a warrant after officers threatened his sister that the house would be confiscated if they were not allowed to search. The court held that these allegations plausibly stated a Fourth Amendment claim. The defendants’ motion did not address this claim.

Failure-to-intervene claim

The court dismissed Debellis’s failure-to-intervene claim against White. Such a claim requires facts showing that the officer had a realistic opportunity to prevent the alleged harm, that a reasonable officer would have known constitutional rights were being violated, and that the officer did not take reasonable steps to intervene. Debellis alleged only that an unidentified officer sexually assaulted him after the arrest and that White was a witness. He did not allege the assault’s duration, the officers’ locations, the number of officers present, or other facts showing that White had a realistic opportunity to intervene.

The court also noted that Debellis’s descriptions of the alleged assault varied among his filings. It declined to consider inconsistent additional allegations in his opposition papers and stated that those allegations would not change the result even if considered.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all of Debellis’s claims except the unlawful-search claim against Flynn and Nash. The court denied leave to amend the dismissed claims, explaining that the false-arrest problems were substantive, that Debellis had not identified facts that would cure the deficiencies, and that he had already received multiple opportunities to amend. Flynn and Nash were ordered to answer within three weeks, and the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all other defendants as parties and terminate the motion.