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.

Payne v. Galie

United States District Court, W.D. New York

August 29, 2017

CHANIKKA DAVIS PAYNE, Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE JOHN GALIE, Niagara Falls City Police Department, DETECTIVE THOMAS FOURMIER, Niagara Falls City Police Department, DETECTIVE THEODORE WEED, Niagara Falls City Police Department, DETECTIVE JOHN FASO, Niagara Falls City Police Department, DETECTIVE JOSEPH GIANQUINTO, MUNICIPAL NIAGARA COUNTY, MUNICIPAL CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK, and DOREEN HOFFMAN, Assistant Niag. County DA, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Chanikka Davis Payne ("Plaintiff) filed this action on August 15, 2009. (Dkt. 1). On October 16, 2012, United States District Judge Michael A. Telesca granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice. (Dkt. 55). Judge Telesca's decision was vacated by the Second Circuit to the extent that it dismissed Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim arising from a March 2007 arrest. (Dkt. 66 at 4). On remand, Plaintiff was permitted to amend her complaint to allege facts in support of that claim (id), and in support of that claim only (Dkt. 72 at 3 ("[T]he only claim remaining for consideration on remand is the alleged violation of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights based on the Niagara Falls Police officers' warrantless entry into another person's apartment to effectuate her arrest.")).

         Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2014, alleging, inter alia, a violation of her constitutional rights during her March 2007 arrest. (Dkt. 67). She filed a supplemental declaration on June 1, 2015, (Dkt. 73; see also Dkt. 67-1), which Judge Telesca deemed a part of the amended complaint (Dkt. 74).

         Presently before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 84; Dkt. 87), and Plaintiffs motion for a decision in her favor (Dkt. 90). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiffs motions for summary judgment and for a decision in her favor are denied.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The facts here are as alleged in Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts.[1](Dkt. 84-17). At the relevant times, Defendants John Galie ("Galie"), Thomas Fournier, [2]Theodore Weed ("Weed"), John Faso ("Faso"), and Joseph Gianquinto (collectively, "Defendants") were officers with the Niagara Falls Police Department. (Dkt. 84-17 at ¶ 1). On March 6, 2007, Plaintiff was arrested by Weed and Faso at 1310 18th Street (Apt. 2), Niagara Falls, New York for an incident that occurred on February 21, 2007, and charged with two felonies. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, 6). To effectuate the arrest, Weed and Faso knocked on Plaintiffs door, which Plaintiff opened willingly. (Id. at ¶ 6). Plaintiff was then informed she was under arrest. (Id.). Plaintiff asked Weed and Faso if she could "put on additional clothes and turn off the stove" prior to being taken into custody. (Id. at ¶ 7). Weed and Faso allowed her to do so, "provided she remain[ed] within the view of the officers for safety reasons." (Id.; see also Dkt. 67-1 at 1 (stating that Weed and Faso allowed Plaintiff to turn off her stove and put on "regular clothes")).

         Neither Weed nor Faso searched the apartment or Plaintiff during the arrest. (Dkt. 84-17 at ¶ 7). Plaintiff was only searched after her booking. (Id. at ¶ 9).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Standard of Review

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment should be granted if the moving party establishes "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). The court should grant summary judgment if, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court finds that no rational jury could find in favor of that party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)).

         Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . [T]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Elec, 475 U.S. at 586-87). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

         II. Defendants Have Shown That There are No Issues of Material Fact

         The only claim remaining in this case following remand from the Second Circuit is Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim arising from her March 2007 arrest. (Dkt. 66 at 4). Plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint that she was subjected to an unconstitutional warrantless arrest. (See Dkt. 67 at ¶ 46). Her supplemental statement- which constitutes part of the amended complaint (see Dkt. 74 at 8)-claims "unlawful entry and unlawful arrest. . . ." (Dkt. 67-1 at 1). Out of ...


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.