Johnson v. City of New York et al, No. 1:2018cv05623 - Document 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint as to his excessive force claims. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 12/23/2019) (jca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. City of New York et al Doc. 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- X GLENN JOHNSON, 12/23/19 Plaintif, 18-CV-5623 (ALC) -against- OPINION & ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Deendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge: X Plaintif Glenn Johnson brings this action,pra se, under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 against the City of New York, the New York Police Department, and Detectives Jalin Bulding, Robert Rentas, and Bryan Leote ( collectively, "Deendants") alleging alse arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive orce. For the reasons set orth below, Deendants' motion to dismiss as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims is GRANTED. Deendants' motion to dismiss as to the excessive orce claims is DENIED, and Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend those claims. BACKGROUND The ollowing acts are taken from allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), ECF No. 13, and are presumed to be true or purposes of this motion. Plaintif alleges that his neighbor's son broke his car windows on two occasions and that Plaintif was the victim of a robbery and gang assault, but that when he reported these crimes to the NYPD, they ailed to make an arrest. SAC at 4. Next, Plaintiff alleges that he was "roughed up" by Detectives Bulding, Rentas, and Leote and that they placed him in tight handcufs when they arrested him. I. Plaintif also alleges that, ater this arrest, he was wrongully accused and prosecuted or harassment in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and "other Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
