Vasquez v. City of New York

Background

Michael Vasquez brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and police officers identified in the caption as John Doe defendants. He alleged that officers unlawfully detained and shot him while he was shopping at a Whole Foods supermarket. According to the complaint, Vasquez told officers he had a knife, reached toward his pocket after they ordered him to remove it, and was then shot multiple times. The opinion states that Vasquez was convicted of aggravated assault on a police officer in connection with the incident and is serving a prison sentence.

The remaining claim was against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services. A Monell claim seeks to hold a municipality liable under § 1983 when a municipal policy, custom, or deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise causes a constitutional violation. Vasquez alleged that the City had a widespread practice of excessive force and failed to train, supervise, monitor, discipline, and investigate its police officers.

Motion and Legal Standard

The City moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court applies the same standard to a Rule 12(c) motion as to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court generally considers the pleadings, documents attached to or incorporated into them, and matters subject to judicial notice. It accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

The court declined to consider the NYPD Misconduct Complaint Database, Civilian Complaint Review Board records, and officer disciplinary records because Vasquez had not referred to those materials in his complaint and relied on them only in his opposition memorandum. The court stated that a party cannot use a brief opposing a dispositive motion to add allegations to the complaint.

Monell Custom-or-Practice Theory

The court concluded that Vasquez’s allegations did not plausibly establish a persistent or widespread City custom of excessive force. The complaint relied on the incident involving Vasquez and a general allegation that the City had a practice of unlawfully using force. The court held that one incident, without additional factual allegations, data, or lawsuits showing a broader pattern, was insufficient to establish a municipal custom or policy.

Failure-to-Supervise Theory

The court also rejected the failure-to-supervise theory. To support that theory, Vasquez needed facts showing a pattern of similar complaints or constitutional violations, along with the City’s failure to investigate or discipline those involved. The court found that the complaint instead made conclusory statements that the City failed to monitor and discipline officers and failed to investigate complaints. It did not identify specific additional incidents or facts showing that the City knew of and tolerated similar misconduct.

Failure-to-Train Theory

The court rejected the failure-to-train theory for similar reasons. Vasquez did not identify a specific deficiency in the City’s training programs, policies, or procedures, and he did not allege facts showing a pattern of similar violations or how a training failure caused his injuries. The court held that his experience alone, together with general and unsupported statements, was insufficient to state a plausible Monell claim.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the City’s Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss Vasquez’s § 1983 claim for Monell liability. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” qualifier.