Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry

Background

Sergei Chepilko represented himself in a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on March 11, 2017, he approached New York Police Department officers after a ticket seller allegedly made threatening gestures toward him. Chepilko alleged that Sergeant Tarakur Chowdhury refused to investigate and that Police Officer Scott Henry forcefully pushed him. After Chepilko requested the officers’ badge numbers, Henry issued him a summons for disorderly conduct based on allegedly obstructing vehicular traffic. The summons was dismissed at Chepilko’s second court appearance on May 17, 2017.

Chepilko’s complaint, read broadly because he was representing himself, alleged malicious prosecution, excessive force, harassment, assault and battery, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, failure to intervene, and failure to properly train. The defendants sought partial summary judgment, which is a decision without a trial when the required evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact. They sought dismissal of the failure-to-train claim against the City and of the state-law claims.

Chepilko received four extensions of the deadline to oppose the motion but did not file an opposition. The court therefore treated the motion as unopposed, while explaining that the defendants still had to meet their burden under the summary-judgment standard.

Municipal-liability claim

The court held that Chepilko had not adequately alleged a claim against the City under § 1983. A municipality generally cannot be held responsible for an employee’s alleged constitutional violation unless an official policy or custom caused the injury. A failure to train or supervise can qualify, but the complaint must provide factual support showing more than a conclusory assertion.

Chepilko identified failure to properly train New York Police Department employees as a cause of action but provided no further allegations or information about training or supervision. The court concluded that he had not adequately alleged the required municipal policy or custom and dismissed the City from the action.

State-law claims

The defendants argued that Chepilko could not pursue state-law claims because he had not complied with New York’s notice-of-claim requirement. That requirement generally requires a plaintiff to serve a municipality with a formal notice before bringing certain state-law claims and to plead compliance in the complaint.

The court found that Chepilko had not pleaded that he complied with the requirement. It therefore dismissed the state-law claims for excessive force, harassment, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, failure to intervene, and failure to train.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The following claims remained: the § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim, the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, the § 1983 failure-to-intervene claim, and the First Amendment retaliation claim.

Because Chepilko had not opposed the motion or complied with the court’s filing orders, the court ordered him to show cause—that is, to explain—within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court stated that failure to make that showing would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the City of New York as a defendant and terminate the motion.