United States District Court, E.D. New York
MICHAEL J. KNEITEL, Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael J. Kneitel, proceeding pro se. brings this
action against Defendants the City of New York (the
"City"); Mark Ryvkin; Kings County District
Attorney's Office employees Courtney Hogg, Krysten Tendy,
and Emily Sperling; and various members of the New York City
Police Department ("NYPD"),  (Am. Compl. (Dkt.
32).) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his civil
rights in connection with a dispute between Plaintiff and
Ryvkin, his then-neighbor. QdL at 5-8.) While Plaintiff
initially asserted claims only against the City, Ryvkin, and
the members of the NYPD (Compl. (Dkt. 1)), he subsequently
filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") containing claims against Sperling and
others (Am. Compl.).
before the court is the City's unopposed motion seeking
sua sponte dismissal of all claims against Sperling,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the
"Motion"). (Mot. to Dismiss ("Mot.") (Dkt
74).) For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS the
Motion and DISMISSES all claims against Sperling.
following facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint and are
presumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.
claims at bar arise from a series of disputes between
Plaintiff and Ryvkin, his neighbor at the time. Plaintiff
states that Ryvkin unsuccessfully brought a civil lawsuit
against Plaintiff and that, when that lawsuit was dismissed,
Ryvkin retaliated against Plaintiff by harassing him in his
home in January 2013. (Am. Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff avers that
he contacted his landlord and the police in an attempt to
have Ryvkin evicted from the apartment complex.
(Id.) Five days after making this report, Plaintiff
was brought from his residence to a police station by
Defendant William Greer and another unnamed individual for
questioning concerning allegations that Plaintiff assaulted
Ryvkin. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that he denied
those allegations and informed Greer that the complaint was
part of Ryvkin's effort to retaliate against Plaintiff.
this questioning, Greer allegedly handcuffed and arrested
Plaintiff and confiscated his belongings. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims that he was placed into an
"unsanitary" holding cage without food or water for
several hours. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was again
handcuffed and transported to "Central Booking."
(Id.) Plaintiff states that this second handcuffing
caused him extreme pain but that, despite informing the
attending police officers of his discomfort, his restraints
were not removed. (Id. at 6-7.)
charges against Plaintiff were forwarded to the District
Attorney's Office for Kings County, New York, where they
were "screened" by Sperling, who Plaintiff
describes as an "Assistant District Attorney
Screener" (id. at 4), and sent to Hogg and Tandy (id at
7). Plaintiff contends that, "[w]ithout a shred of
physical evidence that a crime had actually been committed,
" the district attorney's office charged Plaintiff
with unspecified crimes, after which he was arraigned and
released on his own recognizance, subject to a temporary
protective order limiting his contact with Ryvkin.
April 2013, NYPD officers again came to Plaintiffs residence
and stated that Ryvkin had accused Plaintiff of
"violat[ing] [the temporary protective order] by chasing
 Ryvkin on foot around the block." (Id.)
Plaintiff denied the accusations, and the officers departed
from Plaintiff's residence without taking any further
2013, Defendant Salah Ali, an NYPD detective, arrested
Plaintiff at his workplace based on a complaint by Ryvkin
alleging that Plaintiff had verbally threatened him over the
phone. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Sperling again
screened the complaint against him and forwarded it to Hogg
and Tandy for "further investigation."
(Id.) After arraignment on this second complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that the court entered a more expansive
protective order against him. (Id.)
represents that criminal proceedings against him continued
until November 2014, at which point the charges against him
were dismissed. (Id. at 8.)
filed his complaint on December 4, 2015, and subsequently
amended the complaint on January 13, 2017, to include
additional defendants, including Sperling. (Compl. (Dkt. 1);
Am. Compl.) Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff
brings claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for false arrest
and imprisonment, unlawful search and seizure of Plaintiffs
person and possessions, malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs constitutional
rights, and failure to supervise as to the alleged
constitutional violations. (Am. Compl. at 8-13.) Plaintiff