Carwell v. City Of New York

Background

Glen Carwell brought claims under a federal civil-rights statute against the City of New York and New York Police Department Detective Carlos Lozada. He alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, wrongful search and seizure, excessive force, failure to intervene, denial of a fair trial, and conspiracy. He also asserted parallel state-law claims against Detective Lozada. Carwell separately asserted city-liability claims under Monell, which the court had previously severed and ordered the parties not to brief while the other claims were considered.

The claims arose from a November 30, 2016 armed robbery. About 18 months later, the robbery victim, identified in the opinion as R.R., identified Carwell from a photo array and stated that he was absolutely sure Carwell was one of the robbers. Police later went to Carwell’s apartment, handcuffed him, and took him to a precinct. Carwell said the handcuffs were extremely tight, but he identified no other physical force. Detective Lozada was not present for the arrest or transport. He later sent information about the case to prosecutors and submitted a criminal complaint. Carwell was acquitted at trial.

Summary Judgment

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution

The court held that probable cause supported both the arrest and prosecution. Probable cause means reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a reasonable person to believe the suspect committed a crime. R.R.’s identification of Carwell from the photo array supplied that information. The court noted that Carwell did not allege or provide evidence that the photo array was improperly suggestive. His speculation that the array might have been improper was insufficient to create a factual dispute. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims.

Malicious Abuse of Process

The court also granted summary judgment on the abuse-of-process claim. It did not decide whether probable cause alone defeats such a claim because Carwell offered no evidence of an alternative improper purpose. His acquittal did not establish that probable cause was absent.

Wrongful Search and Seizure and Excessive Force

The court assumed, without deciding, that a factual question might exist about whether Carwell was still inside his apartment when arrested and whether the tight handcuffs amounted to excessive force. Even so, the claims against Detective Lozada failed because Carwell had not shown Lozada’s personal involvement. Lozada was not present during the arrest or transport. His work on the photo array, earlier discussion of an apprehension plan, and later processing of arrest paperwork did not establish involvement in the alleged home intrusion or use of force. The court granted summary judgment on these claims.

Failure to Intervene

A failure-to-intervene claim requires evidence that an officer knew a constitutional violation was occurring and had a realistic opportunity to stop it. Because Lozada was not present during the arrest, Carwell provided no evidence that Lozada saw the alleged violations or could have prevented them. The court granted summary judgment on this claim.

Denial of a Fair Trial

The court granted summary judgment on the fair-trial claim because Carwell offered no evidence that Lozada provided prosecutors with fabricated evidence. Carwell’s speculation based on his later acquittal was insufficient.

Conspiracy

The court granted summary judgment on the federal conspiracy claim. Carwell relied primarily on reports showing that Lozada discussed the case and later processed arrest paperwork. Those facts did not support an inference that Lozada agreed with others to carry out an unconstitutional plan.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After granting summary judgment on all of Carwell’s federal claims addressed in the opinion, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parallel state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling them based on that disposition.

The court concluded that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. All of Carwell’s federal claims, except the previously severed city-liability claims under Monell, were dismissed with prejudice. The court ordered Carwell to show cause by February 10, 2023, why the remaining city-liability claims should not also be dismissed with prejudice and the case closed. Judge Valerie Caproni directed the clerk to close the motion.