Lloyd v. City of New York et al, No. 1:2012cv04303 - Document 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Pltff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The complaint is dismissed against City of NY and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department as set forth below. No summons sha ll issue against these defts. The complaint against Police Officers Burns, Blondel, and Wozny shall proceed. The Clerk of Court shall prepare a summons against defts Burns, Blondel, and Wozny and the US Marshals Service shall serve the summons, comp laint, and a copy of this Order upon these defts without prepayment of fees. The case is referred to USMJ Bloom for pretrial supervision. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken on good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an apepal. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 9/5/2012) c/m by chambers with unpublished decisions. (Galeano, Sonia)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED "~~~d-~N.t y~ (~ IN CI.ERK'S OFFICE US CISTRICT COURT E * SEPD62012~,;~C/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------JIMMIE LLOYD, :\ BROOKLYN OFFICE )( \?)! MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, -against- 12 Civ. 4303 (BMC) (LB) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NYC METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITYPOLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICERS BURNS, BLONDEL, WOZNY, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------- )( COGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Jimmie Lloyd has commenced this prose action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court grants plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The complaint is dismissed against the City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department as set forth below. The claims against defendant Police Officers Burns, Blonde! and Wozny are referred to the Honorable Lois Bloom, United States Magistrate Judge, for pretrial supervision. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that on April 13, 2012, he was involved in a physical altercation with another individual, and that Police Officers Blonde!, Burns, and Wozny responded to the scene of the fight and arrested plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant officers used excessive force against him, including by pushing his face into a wall, throwing him to the ground, kicking him in the legs, back, and head, and slapping him. He seeks monetary damages. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim .. on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." However, courts must construe a prose litigant's pleadings liberally, see Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir. 2010), especially when those pleadings allege civil rights violations, see Sealed Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, a complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. (1955)). Similarly, a complaint is insufficient to state a claim "if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement."' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S. Ct. (1955)). DISCUSSION In order to sustain a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a municipal defendant, such as the City of New York or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), 1 a plaintiff must show the existence of an officially adopted policy or custom that caused injury and a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs. of City ofNew York, 436 U.S. 658, 1 The MTA is a New York City authority and a municipal entity. See Rivera v. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 09 Civ. 5879, 2010 WL 4545579, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. ll, 2010); Stevens v. Metro. Transp. Auth. Police Dep't, 293 F. Supp. 2d 415, 420-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Smith v. Metro North Commuter R.R., No. 98 Civ. 2528, 2000 WL 1449865, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2000). 2 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978); see also Connick v. Thompson, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1359, 179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (201 I) (municipalities can be held liable for "practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law"). "Isolated acts of excessive force by non-policymaking municipal employees are generally insufficient to demonstrate a municipal custom, policy or usage that would justifY municipal liability." Jones v. Town of East Haven,--- F.3d ---,2012 WL 3104523, at *6 (2d Cir. Aug. I, 2012); see also Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 82324, I 05 S. Ct. 2427 (1985). Here, plaintiff does not allege, and nothing in his complaint suggests, that any of the allegedly wrongful acts or omissions on the part of any City or MTA employee are attributable to a municipal policy or custom. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against the City of New York or the MTA Police Department. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to these defendants. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint is dismissed as to the City ofNew York and the MTA Police Department for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). No summons shall issue against these defendants. The complaint against defendant Police Officers Burns, Blonde!, and Womy shall proceed. The Clerk of Court shall prepare a summons against defendants Burns, Blonde!, and Womy and the United States Marshals Service shall serve the summons, complaint, and a copy of this Order upon these defendants without prepayment of fees. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Bloom for pretrial supervision. 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 3 ------- forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917 (I 962). 2 SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York September 5, 2012 4
]]>
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.
