Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WEST v. CITY OF NEW YORK

United States District Court, S.D. New York


October 4, 2004.

LEONARD WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
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 malicious prosecution.

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.

20041004

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.