Zeng v. Chell

Background

Xiamin Zeng brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for certain constitutional violations, and under New York state law. Her original claims included false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, abuse of criminal process, municipal liability, and denial of medical treatment.

In an earlier order, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. That order dismissed Zeng’s § 1983 claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, malicious abuse of process, and municipal liability. The remaining claims were against Detective Danielle Febus for excessive force and deliberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions of confinement under § 1983, and against Febus and the City of New York for assault and battery under New York law. The opinion also states that Inspector John Chell and Officer Christopher Robley were never served and therefore were not defendants, and that no claims remained against several other officers.

The events underlying the remaining claims occurred on January 31, 2018. Zeng went to a police station after receiving a text message that her son was at the Queens Child Abuse Squad and asking her to pick him up. She waited in a glass-walled room for approximately three hours. She said that she had difficulty breathing, needed water, and needed to use the bathroom. After Detective Febus arrived, Zeng also said that she wanted to see her son, attend a doctor’s appointment, see her attorney, drink water, and use the bathroom. Zeng had been prescribed an inhaler for asthma but did not bring it with her.

The opinion states that Febus ran a system check, found an active investigation card stating that there was probable cause to arrest Zeng, and arrested her. Febus placed one handcuff on Zeng’s wrist. Zeng later complained that her head, arm, and wrist hurt and asked Febus to loosen the handcuff, but Febus did not do so. Febus removed the handcuff when Zeng arrived at the 75th Precinct. Zeng was handcuffed for no more than 100 minutes and was denied access to a bathroom for approximately five hours, according to the undisputed facts and Zeng’s allegations described in the opinion.

The Motions and the Federal Claims

Febus and the City moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute about an important fact requires a trial and that the party is entitled to judgment under the law. The defendants sought dismissal of Zeng’s § 1983 excessive-force and deliberate-indifference claims. They also argued that Febus was entitled to qualified immunity, a protection that can shield a government official from liability when the law did not clearly establish that the official’s conduct was unlawful.

Zeng did not respond to the defendants’ arguments for summary judgment on her § 1983 claims or to the qualified-immunity argument. She defended only her assault, battery, and excessive-force claims. At oral argument, Zeng’s counsel expressly stated that Zeng had abandoned her federal claims. The court treated that failure to respond and express abandonment as grounds for dismissing the federal claims.

State-Law Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction

The remaining claims were Zeng’s New York assault-and-battery claims against Febus and against the City on a respondeat-superior basis. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court stated that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original federal jurisdiction. Because all of Zeng’s federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Zeng’s § 1983 claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions of confinement against Detective Febus. It dismissed Zeng’s state-law assault-and-battery claims against Febus and the City of New York without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action, close all pending motions, and close the case.

Judge John G. Koeltl signed the memorandum opinion and order on January 23, 2024.