Abusikin v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-04582
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abusikin v. City of New York, Judge Torres reconsidered and denied summary judgment on Abusikin’s federal malicious-prosecution claim.
Garelabि Abusikin’s federal malicious-prosecution claim was reinstated for trial. The City of New York, Police Officer Mirjan Lolja, and John Does 1-2 did not obtain summary judgment on that claim.
What happened
In Abusikin v. City of New York, Garelabi Abusikin asked the court to consider a Supreme Court decision changing the law on federal malicious-prosecution claims and to instruct the trial jury accordingly. The defendants opposed, arguing that the request was an untimely motion to reconsider an earlier dismissal of that claim.
The court treated the request as a motion for reconsideration. It found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Thompson v. Clark changed the controlling law by holding that a plaintiff need only show that the criminal prosecution ended without a conviction, rather than show circumstances affirmatively indicating innocence. Abusikin’s prosecution had been dismissed and sealed without a conviction.
Judge Analisa Torres granted Abusikin’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the earlier order granting summary judgment to the defendants on the federal malicious-prosecution claim, and denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on that claim. The court directed the parties to submit a joint proposed jury instruction for the reinstated claim.
The detailed version
- Abusikin v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04582
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Garelabि Abusikin asked the court to take notice of an intervening change in the law— the Supreme Court’s decision in Thompson v. Clark—and to instruct the jury on that law at the upcoming trial. The defendants argued that the request should be treated as an untimely motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 11, 2021 decision granting them summary judgment on Abusikin’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution.
The court agreed that the request should be treated as a motion for reconsideration. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, a court may reconsider an earlier decision before final judgment. Reconsideration may be warranted when there is an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Court’s analysis
The earlier order relied on a Second Circuit decision requiring Abusikin to show that his criminal prosecution ended under circumstances affirmatively indicating his innocence. The Supreme Court later rejected that requirement in Thompson v. Clark. It held that a plaintiff bringing a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 need only show that the criminal prosecution ended without a conviction.
The court found that this change in controlling law warranted reconsideration. Abusikin’s criminal case had been dismissed and sealed on March 6, 2017, so the court concluded that the prosecution ended without a conviction. The court also relied on its earlier findings that a reasonable jury could find that Police Officer Mirjan Lolja initiated the charges and that material factual disputes remained concerning probable cause and malice.
Ruling
The court granted Abusikin’s motion for reconsideration and vacated the portion of the earlier order that had granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim. Upon reconsideration, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that claim. It ordered the parties to file a joint proposed jury instruction for the reinstated claim by October 7, 2022. The opinion also notes that the court had previously denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Abusikin’s state-law malicious-prosecution claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.