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.

Khalil v. City of New York

United States District Court, E.D. New York

July 26, 2018

ADIL KHALIL, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:

         Pro se plaintiff Adil Khalil ("plaintiff”) filed his first complaint on March 22, 2017 (ECF No. 1), and filed an amended complaint on August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 10), alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 ("Section 1983") and 1985 ("Section 1985"). On November 20, 2017, defendant Mayor Bill de Blasio filed a motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 25-28.) On December 18, 2017, defendants Borough Commissioner Ira Gluckman, Deputy Director Winston Von Engel, and Plan Examiner Charles Coutain (together with Mayor Bill de Blasio, "the individual defendants") filed a motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint. (ECF No. 37-41.) This Court referred the motions to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Stephen I. Locke for a Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 57.)

         On June 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Locke issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"). (ECF No. 58.) The R&R recommended that the Court grant the individual defendants' motions to dismiss in their entirety and dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, except for plaintiffs causes of action based on the "Brooklyn Incidents, "[1] discussed infra, which the R&R recommended the Court dismiss with prejudice. (Id. at 2.) On July 2, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to the R&R ("plaintiffs objections"). (ECF No. 60.) On July 16, 2018, the individual defendants filed an opposition in response to plaintiffs objections. (ECF No. 61.) The Court has fully considered the parties' submissions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in its entirety.

         Standard of Review

         A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F.Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F.Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). As to those portions of a report to which no "specific written objections" are made, the Court may accept the findings contained therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F.Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). When "a party submits a timely objection to a report and recommendation, the district judge will review the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected under a de novo standard of review." Jeffries v. Verizon, 10-CV-2686 (JFB)(AKT), 2012 WL 4344188, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").

         Plaintiffs Objections

         Plaintiff submitted an "objection" to the Court that: (1) summarizes the R&R, (2) requests that the Court grant plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, and (3) provides a statement of facts summarizing the claims he would include in this second complaint. Plaintiffs submission does not, however, address the reasons provided in the R&R for recommending dismissal. (ECF No. 60 at 2-8.) Specifically, it fails to rebut the findings and/or recommendations that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims arising from the alleged Brooklyn Incidents (ECF No. 58 at 9-11), (2) plaintiff failed to state a claim under either Section 1983 or Section 1985 (id at 11-23), and (3) in light of these first two grounds for dismissal, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged state law claims (id at 23-24). Instead, plaintiffs response discusses his mental and physical health (ECF No. 60 at 3-4), as well as the claims he already alleged in his amended complaint against the New York Police Department ("NYPD") for alleged unreasonable search and seizure and false arrest (id at 4-6), against the NYPD in connection with his alleged stalker (id at 6-7), and against a "DCDA officer"[2] and the municipality for deprivation of property (id. at 7-8). As discussed further infra, the R&R fully and correctly addressed each of these claims, and plaintiffs response fails to raise new arguments that undermine the correct analysis contained in the R&R.

         Plaintiffs response concludes with his request that the Court him grant leave to file a second amended complaint (Id.)

         Analysis

         Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having conducted a de novo review of the entire R&R, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the R&R in their entirety.

         First, the Court agrees with the R&R's conclusion, under the correct legal standard, that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over what Magistrate Judge Locke named the "Brooklyn Incidents," which include plaintiffs claims that he was: "(1) accused of making a bomb threat; (2) told by Defendant Coutain that he . . . 'was not welcome,' barred from a plan examination and escorted out of the building; and (3) accused of 'masturbating or touching [himself].'" (ECF No. 58 at 3 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-25).) The R&R explained that "a claimant who has filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights ('NYCCHR') is generally precluded from pursuing the same claims in a judicial forum" (id. at 9 (citing York v. Assoc, of Bar of City of N.Y., 286 F.3d 122, 127 (2d Cir. 2002))), that plaintiff had filed such an administrative complaint regarding the Brooklyn Incidents, and that his complaint had been dismissed (id. at 10). This Court, therefore, agrees with Magistrate Judge Locke's conclusion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims, and that they should be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 9.)

         Second, the Court agrees with the R&R's findings that plaintiff failed to state a claim under either Section 1983 or Section 1985. Magistrate Judge Locke correctly explained that the Section 1983 claims failed for the following reasons: (1) plaintiff failed to allege personal involvement of the individually named defendants-plaintiffs claims with respect to these defendants "arise solely in the context of the Brooklyn Incidents, over which the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as described above" (id. at 13), (2) the claims based on the April 13, 2013 website posting and February 7, 2014 detention are time-barred, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis for tolling the statute of limitations (id), (3) plaintiff failed to allege that he was denied procedural due process with respect to the October 16, 2016 threat of commitment because he was not actually committed (id. at 16), (4) plaintiff has also failed to allege that he was denied substantive due process with respect to the October 16, 2016 incident because he has not alleged any use of physical force, that the officer was able to effectuate the threat of detention, or that plaintiff was subsequently detained, (5) plaintiff has not alleged that he was without an adequate post-deprivation remedy, or that the deprivation was the result of a "random and unauthorized" act, as required to succeed on his claim regarding the alleged December 16, 2016 theft of his wallet (id. at 18-19), and (6) plaintiffs Monell claim fails because he included no specific allegations against or references to New York City, or allegations regarding a municipal policy, practice, or custom, to support such a claim (id at 20-21 (citing Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). With regard to plaintiffs Section 1985 conspiracy claim, Magistrate Judge Locke correctly explained that this claim (1) was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine because the individual defendants are part of a single municipal entity, and plaintiff does not allege that any of them possessed an independent conspiratorial purpose (id. at 22), and (2) failed because plaintiff did not make any allegations regarding racial or class-based animus (id. at 23).

         Finally, pointing to precedent in which courts declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once federal claims were dismissed, the R&R correctly recommended that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that the amended complaint could be construed to contain. (Id. (citing Quiroz v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 10-CV-2485, 2011 WL 2471733, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. May 16, 2011).)

         As discussed supra, the R&R recommends that the Court dismiss each of plaintiff s claims without prejudice-except for plaintiffs causes of action based on the Brooklyn Incidents, which the R&R recommends dismissing with prejudice-and grant plaintiff leave to amend. (Id. at 24-25.) In particular, the R&R recommended that the Court grant leave for plaintiff to amend his complaint to include allegations that would "justify equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and satisfy the various other pleading requirements under the standards addressed above." (Id. at 25.) The R&R explains that plaintiff ...


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.