Cruz v. Reiner et al, No. 1:2011cv02131 - Document 40 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Pltff's motion for reconsideration on his false imprisonment claim is DENIED as pltff has offered no adequate basis of reconsideration. Pltff's allegations against defts Cook, the "skinny tall detective,& quot; and the "Spanish bald detective" present a factual issue as to whether these defts were deliberately indifferent to pltff's conditions of confinement. Defts' motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED as to these defts. However, defts' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Lawrence O., as pltff has failed to submit sufficient evidence of Lawrence O.'s personal involvement in pltff's allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Pltff&# 039;s description of Lawrence O.'s involvement in his affidavit does not cure his deficiency. Pltff's affidavit has failed to provide sufficient evidence of the personal involvement of Lawrence O. in pltff's allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and defts' motion for summary judgment is granted as to that deft. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate deft Lawrence O. from this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 1/18/2012) c/m by chambers. (Galeano, Sonia)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER MIGUEL CRUZ, Plaintiff, II Civ. 2131 (BMC)(SMG) -againstJONATHAN REINER, et al., Defendants. X COGAN, District Judge. By Order dated December 12,2011, I granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. This included dismissal of plaintiff's false imprisonment claim. I gave plaintiff twenty-one days to provide a sworn statement describing the personal involvement of defendants Christopher Cooke, "Lawrence 0.," the '"skinny tall detective," and the "Spanish bald detective" in plaintiffs conditions of confinement at the King's County District Attorneys' Office. On December 27, 2011, plaintiff submitted an affidavit, which, in addition to addressing the involvement of the four defendants as I had requested, also seeks reconsideration of my Order granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment. Defendants oppose plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, and contend that plaintitrs affidavit is insufficient as to the personal involvement of the individual defendants named above. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration on his false imprisonment claim is DENIED as plaintiff has offered no adequate basis for reconsideration. Plaintiffs allegations against defendants Cook, the "skinny tall detective," and the "Spanish bald detective" present a factual issue as to whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs conditions of confinement. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED as to these defendants. However, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Lawrence 0., as plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence of Lawrence 0. 's personal involvement in plaintiffs allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. As explained in the Court's December 12,2011 Order, plaintiff was represented by attorney Julie Clarke at the time of his detention at the Kings County District Attorney's Office. Because plaintiff's only allegation against Lawrence 0. was that plaintiffs male attorney had "told supervising A.D.A. Lawrence 0. and he did nothing about it neither," the Court held that plaintiff had not adequately specified when defendant Lawrence 0. became aware of the conditions in which plaintiff was detained. Further, the Court noted that plaintiffs assertion that a male attorney, rather than Julie Clarke, spoke with Lawrence 0. suggested that Lawrence 0. was not informed about the alleged constitutional violation until after it had concluded. Thus, there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that he was personally involved, as required for an action under§ 1983. See Costello v. City of Burlington, 632 F.3d 41,48-49 (2d Cir. 2011); Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470,484 (2d Cir. 2006). Plaintiff's description of Lawrence O.'s involvement in his affidavit does not cure this deficiency. Plaintiff reasserts that his male attorney spoke with Lawrence 0., providing the additional detail that the attorney was Jeff Charbrowe. However, plaintiff again fails to put forth any evidence that would allow a rational jury to conclude that Lawrence 0. knew of and disregarded plaintiffs conditions of confinement. See Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63,72 (2d 2 .Cir. 2009). Moreover, plaintiff states that when Charbrowe asked Lawrence 0. if he knew of the conditions, Lawrence 0. responded that he did not. Thus, plaintiff's affidavit has failed to provide sufficient evidence of the personal involvement of Lawrence 0. in plaintiff's allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to that defendant. The Clerk ofthe Court is instructed to terminate defendant Lawrence 0. from this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). SO ORDERED. / Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 18,2012 3 'uqJiBIY./
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
