Carwell v. City Of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-00480
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Carwell v. City Of New York, Judge Caproni dismissed with prejudice Carwell’s remaining municipal-liability claims after he failed to respond or provide supporting evidence.
Glen Carwell’s remaining municipal-liability claims against the City of New York were dismissed with prejudice, ending the case.
What happened
In Carwell v. City Of New York, Glen Carwell’s claims against the City of New York under a rule allowing claims based on municipal policies or customs remained after the Court’s earlier summary-judgment ruling dismissed his other claims.
The Court had ordered Carwell to explain why those remaining claims should not be dismissed and later extended his deadline, but he did not respond. The Court also noted that he had not conducted discovery or attended his own deposition, and that his allegations about City policies, misconduct, training, and supervision were unsupported conclusions.
Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that the remaining claims lacked both an underlying constitutional violation and evidence supporting the allegations. She dismissed Carwell’s municipal-liability claims with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Carwell v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00480
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
The Court stated that, on January 26, 2023, it had granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Glen Carwell’s claims except his municipal-liability claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York. Those remaining claims were severed. The Court then ordered Carwell to show why the municipal-liability claims should not also be dismissed and later extended the response deadline. Carwell did not respond to either order.
The Court also noted that Carwell did not notice depositions or serve interrogatories or other discovery requests before fact discovery closed. He also did not attend his own deposition.
Legal standard and analysis
A municipal-liability claim under Monell requires a plaintiff to plead and prove three things: an official policy or custom, that caused the plaintiff to suffer, and that caused a denial of a constitutional right. Carwell’s complaint alleged that the City maintained a policy or custom depriving him of civil rights, that City police officers engaged in a pattern and practice of misconduct, and that the City failed to train or supervise its employees. But, as the Court explained, the complaint did not provide facts substantiating those conclusions.
The Court further explained that a municipality cannot be held liable when the alleged constitutional injury was caused by individual defendants who were found not liable. It also stated that conclusory allegations unsupported by evidence cannot defeat summary judgment on a municipal-liability claim.
The Court determined that Carwell had repeatedly received notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed dismissal. It concluded that his remaining claims lacked an underlying constitutional violation and evidence supporting his conclusory allegations.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that Carwell’s Monell claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.