United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge
Ronald Ketcham brings this Section 1983 action against the
City of Mount Vernon and two of its police officers, Michael
Hutchins and Allen Patterson, alleging that Hutchins and
Patterson used excessive force when they arrested him on
March 28, 2017. Plaintiff also brings state law claims
against Patterson and the City for assault and battery.
the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment.
following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1367.
parties submitted briefs, declarations with exhibits, and
statements of material fact pursuant to Local Civil Rule
56.1, which reflect the following factual background.
is a retired United States Probation Officer who resides in
New Rochelle, New York.
Hutchins and Patterson were officers with the Mount Vernon
Police Department (the “MVPD”) when the events
relevant to this action occurred.
afternoon of March 28, 2017, plaintiff was walking on Main
Street in New Rochelle. He was outside a gas station that was
enclosed by a chain link fence.
time, Officers Hutchins and Patterson were assigned to the
MVPD warrant squad and were in New Rochelle searching for
individuals with active arrest warrants. The officers were in
plain clothes in an unmarked vehicle.
officers approached Main Street, they saw a man who fit the
physical description of an individual with an active arrest
warrant. Patterson pulled the car over.
parties have different versions of what happened next.
officers testified they approached plaintiff, with shields
visible around their necks, and identified themselves as
members of the MVPD. According to the officers, they informed
plaintiff that he fit the description of someone they were
looking for, and they asked to see plaintiff's
identification. Plaintiff responded by asking the officers to
identify themselves, which they did. The officers testified
that at this point, plaintiff became belligerent.
to the officers, to subdue plaintiff, they held him up
against the fence. Nevertheless, plaintiff tried to push past
them. In order to effectuate the arrest, Patterson testified
he put plaintiff in an arm bar-a police technique used when
“handcuffing someone to immobilize either
arm”-and then secured one handcuff on his right wrist.
(Doc. #48 (“Pl. Counterstatement”), Ex. D
(“Patterson Dep.”) at 110). Hutchins assisted
Patterson by placing plaintiff's left wrist in the other
this was happening, plaintiff was shouting for bystanders to
call the police. Patterson testified plaintiff was
“actively resisting and fighting” the restraints
and that “he matched [plaintiff's] force” to
get him into the restraints. (Patterson Dep. at 104, 118).
the handcuffs were secured on both of plaintiff's wrists,
the officers attempted to move him to their vehicle. However,
plaintiff resisted and “tried to prevent [the officers]
from putting him in the car.” (Patterson Dep. at 120).
Patterson testified that although he blocked plaintiff's
head as they moved him into the vehicle, plaintiff was