Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Maurice Eaddy v. City of New York and Manhattan Da's Office

December 16, 2011

MAURICE EADDY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK AND MANHATTAN DA'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS.



OPINION

Plaintiff Maurice Eaddy, proceeding pro se, brings this action against defendants the City of New York and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was convicted in 2010 of multiple counts of sexual abuse against a minor. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the charges were false and that he was subjected to false arrest and malicious prosecution.

Defendants move to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion is granted and the case is dismissed.

The Complaint

Plaintiff claims that on Friday, June 26, 2008*fn1 , while at his place of

Case 1:11-cv-01070-TPG Document 17 Filed 12/16/11 Page 2 of 7

employment, he was approached by two NYPD detectives who asked him to accompany them to the police station. Plaintiff alleges that the officers did not inform him that he was a suspect in any crime, did not inform him that he was under arrest, and indicated that they wanted to ask him some questions and "just needed my help with something about a case they had." Plaintiff consented and went with the officers to the station. Plaintiff alleges that he was transported in an unmarked police vehicle and was not handcuffed at this point. Plaintiff further alleges that when he arrived at the police station, he was handcuffed and informed that he was being arrested for sexual assault. He alleges that he was informed that a minor, TH, and her mother Twana Hughes had alleged that plaintiff sexually assaulted TH. Plaintiff alleges that, once at the precinct, he asked to be allowed to call his family and his attorney, but that the police refused his requests. He further alleges that he was never read his Miranda rights.

According to defendants' submissions, plaintiff was subsequently charged and prosecuted for a variety of crimes against TH relating to a pattern sexual assault, which allegedly occurred between June 23, 2006, and December 13, 2008, while TH was less than thirteen years old. A grand jury indicted plaintiff on five counts. On July 27, 2010, a jury convicted plaintiff of three of the five counts: Course of Sexual Conduct against a Child in the First Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree, and one count of Criminal Sexual Abuse in the 2nd Degree. On September 15, 2010, Justice Kahn of the Supreme Court of the State of New York sentenced plaintiff to 7 years imprisonment. There is no indication that plaintiff's conviction has been overturned or invalidated in any way, or even that plaintiff has appealed his conviction in state court.

Plaintiff asserts that the charges against him were false. He claims that he has known the victim's grandmother for several years and that he often visited the grandmother to help her around the house. It appears, although it is not explicitly stated, that the alleged sexual abuse took place in the grandmother's house while the grandmother was home.

Plaintiff claims that the detectives and the District Attorney's Office did not adequately investigate the case because they did not contact the victim's grandmother. Plaintiff also claims that his attorney did not adequately represent him at his criminal trial because he failed to subpoena the victim's grandmother to testify on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff appears to believe that the grandmother's testimony that plaintiff often helped her out around the house would have exonerated him from the sexual assault charges and/or that the grandmother would have testified that TH's claims of sexual abuse were a lie. He also states that TH suffered from emotional personality disorder.

Plaintiff seeks damages for various alleged harms. He also requests that the federal court investigate his case, and, should the court find "that there is no proof to the allegations and there was malice on behalf of all defendants listed that I be released from prison immediately and awarded damages by all defendants in the sum of $850 million."

Plaintiff initially brought suit against the NYPD, the Legal Aid Society, the NYC Public Defenders' Office, TH, and Twana Hughes, in addition to the City of New York and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. However, this court dismissed the NYPD, the Legal Aid Society, the NYC Public Defenders' Office, TH, and Twana Hughes from this action in an order dated March 4, 2011.

The remaining defendants, the City of New York and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, move to dismiss the case against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The motion was filed on July 18, 2011. On that same date, defendants filed a certificate of service, noting that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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