United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
GABRIEL W. GORESTEIN United States Magistrate Judge.
Soberanis, currently an inmate in the Watertown Correctional
Facility in Watertown, New York, brought this suit pro
se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New
York (“the City”) and the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
(“DOCCS”). Complaint, dated Feb. 16, 2015 (Docket
# 2) (“Compl.”). Soberanis alleges that he was
illegally confined at the Queensboro Correctional Facility
(“Queensboro”) in New York City for approximately
two weeks. See id. at *2, *8. DOCCS was
previously dismissed as a defendant. See Order,
dated Mar. 31, 2015 (Docket # 6). The sole remaining
defendant in this case, the City, has moved for summary
following reasons, the City's motion for summary judgment
motion for summary judgment, we “view the facts and
draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
party opposing the summary judgment motion, ” Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (citation, brackets,
and internal quotation marks omitted) - in this case,
September 3, 2014, while he was on parole for a 2006 burglary
conviction, Soberanis was arrested for another burglary.
See “Transcript of Deposition of Ernesto
Soberanis, ” dated Aug. 23, 2016 (attached as Ex. B to
Okoh Decl.) (“Pl. Dep.”), 28:24-29:2, 31:5-20.
That arrest resulted in Soberanis being sentenced to serve 90
days in jail at Queensboro for a violation of his parole.
See 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 2-4; Pl. Dep.
December 22, 2014, while Soberanis was serving his sentence
for the parole violation, see 56.1 Statement
¶¶ 1-2; Pl. Dep. 34:4-35:13, a Bronx County Supreme
Court Justice, Justice Richard Lee Price, issued an Order to
Produce, which recited that Soberanis had been indicted,
see Order to Produce, dated Dec. 22, 2014 (attached
as Ex. C to Okoh Decl.) (“Order to Produce”) -
apparently for an April 2014 burglary, not the September 2014
burglary, see Pl. Dep. 31:14-32:16, 34:4-36:6,
37:20-42:4; 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 3-5. The Order to
Produce required that the Warden of Queensboro produce
Soberanis in Bronx County Supreme Court on December 24, 2014,
so that the Bronx District Attorney could proceed on the
indictment against him. The record contains a copy of the
arrest warrant related to the indictment for the April
burglary. Warrant of Arrest, dated Dec. 23, 2014 (attached as
Ex. D to Okoh Decl.) (“Warrant”); see
also 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 5-7; Pl. Opp'n at
*1. The Order to Produce directed that Soberanis be
“returned” to Queensboro following his court
is a New York State correctional facility. 56.1 Statement
¶ 1; Pl. Dep. 30:18-21. In compliance with the Order to
Produce, two New York State correctional officers took
Soberanis to the Bronx County courthouse on December 24,
2014. Pl. Dep. 38:4-39:20. The court was closed, however, and
Soberanis was not arraigned. See 56.1 Statement
¶¶ 9-10; Pl. Dep. 39:21-40:12. The officers then
took Soberanis to the New York Police Department's
(“NYPD”) 42nd Precinct, where detectives
processed Soberanis's arrest on the warrant. 56.1
Statement ¶¶ 7-10; accord Compl. at *8;
Pl. Dep. 40:11-42:12. After the arrest, Soberanis was
returned to the Queensboro facility. 56.1 Statement ¶
10; accord Compl. at *8; Pl. Dep. 40:3-20.
alleges that he was due to be released from Queensboro on
December 24, 2014, and asserts that the Superintendent of
Queensboro “kept [Soberanis] there for 2 weeks until
1/7/15, ” despite having “no right to hold
[Soberanis] there.” Compl. at *8. Soberanis was kept in
the “SHU” at Queensboro during this period. Pl.
January 7, 2015, Soberanis was brought to court again and was
arraigned on the indictment referenced in the Order to
Produce. See 56.1 Statement ¶ 12; Pl. Dep.
46:4-16, 57:7-16. Soberanis ultimately pled guilty to the
burglary charged in the indictment (as well as to another
burglary) and was sentenced to 2-1/2 to 5 years imprisonment.
Pl. Dep. 57:25-58:9.
LAW GOVERNING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Tolan v. Cotton, 134
S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014) (per curiam). A genuine issue of
material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,
“[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed,
” and the court must draw “all justifiable
inferences” in favor of the non-moving party.
Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress &
Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)); accord
Tolan, 134 S.Ct. at 1863. Nevertheless, once the moving
party has shown that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law, “the nonmoving party must come forward
with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial, ” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citations,
emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted), and
“may not rely on conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated speculation, ” Bermudez v. City of
New York, 790 F.3d 368, 373-74 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Jeffreys v. City of New
York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005)). In other words,
the nonmovant must offer “concrete evidence from which
a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his
favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Where
“the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at
trial, summary judgment is warranted if the nonmovant fails
to ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to [its] case.'”
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584, 590 (1993)
(alteration in original) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Thus, “[a]
defendant moving for summary judgment must prevail if the
plaintiff fails to come forward with enough evidence to
create a genuine factual issue to be tried with respect to an
element essential to its case.” Allen v.
Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253, 258 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48).
Soberanis is proceeding pro se, we construe his
papers “liberally and interpret them to raise the
strongest arguments that they suggest.” E.g.,
McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir.
1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Nonetheless, “our application of this different
standard does not relieve plaintiff of his duty to meet the
requirements necessary to defeat a motion for summary
judgment.” Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351
F.3d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). These requirements include “compliance
with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.”