Ndemenoh v. Boudreau

Background

Bassey B. Ndemenoh, a former CUNY student, sued CUNY employees Vincent Boudreau, William C. Thompson, Anthony Laperuta, Wendy Thornton, George Rhinehart, and Tanni Baidya in their individual and official capacities. He alleged that he was detained, arrested, and prosecuted twice after Baidya allegedly created email accounts using his name, sent threatening messages to herself and Professor Robert Melara, and reported that Ndemenoh had sent the messages.

The first arrest occurred on November 28, 2016, after Laperuta and campus safety personnel detained Ndemenoh and transferred him to the New York City Police Department. He was charged with aggravated harassment. The second arrest occurred on March 26, 2017, after Baidya allegedly reported another threatening email and Ndemenoh was accused of violating a protective order. He was charged with criminal contempt, aggravated harassment, and harassment. Both criminal proceedings ended in Ndemenoh’s favor.

Timeliness

The defendants argued that the claims were untimely under New York’s three-year deadline for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. Judge Abrams rejected that argument. The court held that New York executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic paused applicable deadlines for 229 days, making Ndemenoh’s claims timely when he filed the action on June 11, 2020.

Claims treated as abandoned

The defendants challenged all 22 causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint. Ndemenoh’s opposition meaningfully addressed only the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims. The court therefore treated his claims for excessive force, discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, failure to intervene, and conspiracy as abandoned and dismissed them on that basis.

The court did not treat the claims against Boudreau, Thompson, and Thornton as abandoned because Ndemenoh did respond to the arguments concerning their lack of personal involvement.

Claims against Boudreau, Thompson, and Thornton

The court granted dismissal of the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Boudreau, Thompson, and Thornton. The complaint alleged that they received messages or grievances about the arrests and failed to respond, but it did not plausibly allege that they personally participated in either arrest or the later criminal proceedings. The court held that merely receiving a complaint and failing to act was not enough to establish the personal involvement required for a damages claim under Section 1983.

Claims involving Laperuta and Rhinehart

The court dismissed the claims against Laperuta and Rhinehart arising from the November 2016 arrest. As to Laperuta, the complaint showed that he relied on threatening emails and information from Baidya that appeared facially to implicate Ndemenoh. The court held that the allegations established probable cause for purposes of the motion, which defeated both false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims concerning that arrest. As to Rhinehart, the complaint alleged only that he forwarded Baidya’s initial complaint to campus safety, which was insufficient.

The court allowed the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Laperuta and Rhinehart concerning the March 26, 2017 arrest and later prosecution to proceed. The complaint alleged that they forwarded Baidya’s second report to prosecutors even though they had previously confirmed or learned that Ndemenoh had not sent the first threatening emails. Those allegations supported a plausible inference that they knew, or should have investigated whether, the second report was false and that they intended proceedings against Ndemenoh to begin.

Claims against Baidya

The court allowed the individual-capacity false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Baidya concerning both arrests to proceed. It held that the allegations that Baidya created fraudulent emails, made them appear to come from Ndemenoh, and filed reports based on them plausibly showed that she actively caused the arrests and prosecutions. The court also rejected the argument that the prosecutors’ decisions broke the connection between Baidya’s alleged conduct and the prosecutions.

The court further held that the allegations plausibly supported the required improper motive for malicious prosecution because Baidya allegedly knowingly reported threats that she herself had fabricated and sent.

Official-capacity claims and requested relief

The court held that the complaint sought not only money damages but also prospective injunctive relief to remove Ndemenoh’s suspension from his student record. That request could fall within the limited exception allowing certain suits for injunctive relief against state officials. The court dismissed the official-capacity claims against Baidya and Laperuta because the complaint did not allege that they had authority to alter Ndemenoh’s student record.

The official-capacity claims against Rhinehart concerning the March 2017 arrest survived because the complaint alleged that he acted with the authority of the Dean of Student Affairs in matters involving Ndemenoh’s suspension, supporting an inference that he might be able to provide the requested relief.

Disposition

Judge Abrams denied the motion to dismiss as to: (1) Baidya, in her individual capacity, for false arrest and malicious prosecution related to both arrests; (2) Laperuta, in his individual capacity, for false arrest and malicious prosecution arising from the March 26, 2017 arrest; and (3) Rhinehart, in his individual and official capacities, for false arrest and malicious prosecution arising from that arrest. The motion was otherwise granted in its entirety. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court allowed Ndemenoh to file another amended complaint within 30 days if he had a good-faith basis to do so.