United States District Court, S.D. New York
October 4, 2004.
LEONARD WEST, Plaintiff,
CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL INGRAM, and KEVIN JUDGE, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT SWEET, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 9, 2004, defendant the City of New York (the "City")
moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the complaint of plaintiff
Leonard West ("West") in its entirety on the grounds that West
has failed to state a claim against the City under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City argues that "the only conceivable claim plaintiff
may bring is for municipal liability" as the City is "the only
defendant in this action" and "plaintiff does not bring any state
law claims against defendant City." (City Mem. at 5 & n. 1.) In
opposition to the City's motion, West argues that an amended
complaint filed subsequent to the City's motion only alleges
state-law claims against the City. Oral arguments having been
heard on September 29, 2004, and the motion deemed fully
submitted at that time, the motion is denied for the reasons set
forth below. The complaint in this action was filed on October 27, 2003, and
contained four claims. The first claim of the complaint alleged
violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution by John Does 1-2, alleged to be police
officers employed by the City. The remaining claims of the
complaint were for false arrest, false imprisonment, and
In a letter dated July 29, 2004, West sought leave to amend his
complaint to substitute the names of individual defendants
previously identified as John Does 1-2. In that same letter,
West's counsel stated that "no Monell claim is asserted against
the City." (Letter of Michael G. O'Neill, Esq., to the Court,
dated July 29, 2004, at 2.) Leave was granted to amend the
complaint by order of August 6, 2004, filed on August 11, 2004.
On September 9, 2004, West filed an amended complaint, stating a
single federal claim against the individual defendants, Michael
Ingram ("Ingram") and Kevin Judge ("Judge"), and three claims
under state law against the City, Ingram and Judge. The amended
complaint, like the original complaint, asserts jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367, as well as under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
West has been granted an extension of time until November 15,
2004, in which to serve the amended complaint upon Ingram and
Judge. Although no claim against the City has been pled under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
436 U.S. 658 (1978), has been specifically disavowed by West, the
City's motion for summary judgment is nonetheless denied.
Supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the
City is exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 without prejudice
to the City's ability to move for dismissal should it later be
shown that original jurisdiction is lacking.
It is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.