Doe v. City of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-08429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Doe v. City of New York, Judge Carter granted New York City’s motion, dismissed the federal claim, and dismissed remaining claims without prejudice.
Jane Doe’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed, and her claims against Edwin Crespo and Gino Pelaez and her state-law claims against the City were dismissed without prejudice. The remaining motions were denied as moot.
What happened
In Doe v. City of New York, Jane Doe alleged that two officers sexually assaulted her and that related investigations were mishandled. She brought claims under federal and New York anti-discrimination laws and a federal civil-rights statute against New York City and the officers.
New York City asked the court to dismiss the claims against it. The court ruled that Doe had not alleged a city policy or custom causing a constitutional violation, so it dismissed her federal civil-rights claim against the City. The court also declined to decide the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.
Judge Carter granted New York City’s motion to dismiss. The state-law claims against the City and all claims against the two officers were dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining motions were denied as moot. The court directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Doe v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08429
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Jane Doe, an Assistant District Attorney at the Bronx District Attorney’s Office, alleged that Officer Edwin Crespo sexually assaulted her at the office in 2016. She also alleged that Gino Pelaez sexually assaulted her after a work event in 2019. Doe reported both incidents and described investigations by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the New York Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, and the Bronx District Attorney’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office. She alleged that the investigations were delayed or inadequately handled.
Doe brought hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion also addressed her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against the City. The opinion states that Doe had withdrawn her Title VII claims. The City moved to dismiss the claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Federal Civil-Rights Claim Against the City
The court applied the rule that a municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. Doe based her claim on the Bronx District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and Executive Assistant District Attorney Odalys C. Alonso. She alleged that the office and Alonso failed to adequately investigate the Crespo and Pelaez incidents and failed to take remedial action against Crespo.
The court concluded that these allegations did not support an inference that the investigations resulted from a citywide policy. It also noted that the Bronx District Attorney’s Office could not terminate Crespo because he was employed by the New York Police Department. The court found Doe’s allegations conclusory and held that she had not pleaded a municipal policy, express or otherwise, that led to a constitutional violation. The court dismissed the § 1983 claim against the City.
State-Law Claims and Disposition
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in the absence of another basis for federal jurisdiction. The court dismissed without prejudice all of Doe’s claims against Pelaez and Crespo and her state-law claims against the City.
The court granted the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice, denied the remaining pending motions as moot, directed the clerk to terminate the specified docket entries, and closed the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.