United States District Court, E.D. New York
EMMANUEL OKOCHA For the Plaintiff
J. ASHANTI For the Defendant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge
Allen Brown brings claims against defendants the City of New
York, Officer Timothy Downing, and eight unnamed officers
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious
prosecution and § 1985 for conspiracy. Plaintiff also
alleges liability against the City under Monell v. N.Y.
City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c). Plaintiff's conspiracy and Monell claims
are dismissed with prejudice.
motion to dismiss is otherwise denied.
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), plaintiff
alleges that on August 22, 2012, he was arrested by eight New
York City police officers without a warrant. He was charged
with nine counts of sale and possession of cocaine. He was
indicted by a grand jury. His arrest and indictment appear to
be based on Officer Downing's identification of plaintiff
as a person who sold drugs to an undercover officer during a
jury trial, plaintiff was acquitted, and he filed this
lawsuit. Essentially, he alleges that his arrest without a
warrant or probable cause was illegal, and Officer Downing
and the other unnamed officers knowingly lied about his
involvement in the drug transactions to obtain an indictment.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter
the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay
trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). “The same standard applicable to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss applies to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) motions for judgment on the
pleadings.” Bank of N.Y. v. First
Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir. 2010).
“Thus, we will accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in
[plaintiffs'] favor.” Hayden v. Paterson,
594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to
dismiss a complaint that “fail[s] to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To
survive, the complaint must plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,
” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007), and “allow the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged, ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
defendants argue plaintiff's false arrest claim is
time-barred by New York's three-year statute of
limitations because he was arrested on August 22, 2012 and
filed his initial complaint on August 25, 2015, three years
and three days later.SeeOwens v. Okure, 488
U.S. 235, 251 (1989). However, “if ‘success on [a
§ 1983] claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of
a conviction in a pending criminal prosecution, such a claim
does not accrue so long as the potential for a judgment in
the pending criminal prosecution continues to
exist.'” Covington v. City of New York,
171 F.3d 117, 124 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Smith v.
Holtz, 87 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 1996)). This is so
because “§ 1983 actions . . . are not
‘appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of
outstanding criminal judgments'” and
“‘[i]f such a claim could proceed while criminal
proceedings are ongoing, there would be a potential for
inconsistent determinations in civil and criminal cases and
the criminal defendant would be able ...