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.

Blythe v. The City of New York

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 5, 2013

KATHRYN BLYTHE, Plaintiff, -
v.
- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RAFAELA ESPINAL-PACHECO, in her individual capacity, VICKY BROADHURST, in her individual capacity, OFFICER MATHEW BIJOU, in his individual capacity, and LIEUTENANT GALLAGHER, in his individual capacity, Defendants

Page 159

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 160

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 161

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 162

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 163

For Kathryn Blythe, Plaintiff: Ambrose W. Wotorson, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Ambrose Wotorson, Brooklyn, NY.

For City of New York, New York City Department of Education, Rafaela Espinal-Pacheco, in individual capacity, Vicky Broadhurst, in individual capacity, Vicky Broadhurst, in individual capacity, Defendants: Andre Leon Lindsay, LEAD ATTORNEY, Donna A. Canfield, NYC Law Department, New York, NY; Jane E. Andersen, New York City Law Department, New York, NY.

OPINION

Page 164

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.

On July 16, 2008, plaintiff Kathryn Blythe brought this action against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education (" DOE" ), two employees of the DOE -- Principal Rafaela Espinal-Pacheco and Assistant Principal Vicky Broadhurst -- in their individual capacities (collectively " DOE defendants" ), and New York Police Department (" NYPD" ) Officer Bijou Mathew in his individual capacity.[1] (Doc. No. 1.) The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint on May 6, 2009, and she filed an amended complaint on May 8, 2009, adding NYPD Lieutenant Gallagher as a defendant.[2] (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § § 1981 and 1983, and deprivation of a liberty interest in violation of § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment against the DOE defendants; and false arrest and an unlawful strip search, in violation of § § 1983 and 1985, against all defendants. Before the Court are defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (Doc. No. 55) and plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 37, 38). Plaintiff opposes

Page 165

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 49.) For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiff's ...


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.