Summary
This memorandum and order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York resolves a motion for summary judgment concerning a plaintiff’s failure-to-intervene claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court evaluates whether qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for allegedly failing to stop another officer from using excessive force. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the judge determines that no clearly established law placed a duty on the defendant officer to intervene under the specific facts presented. Accordingly, the court grants the motion and dismisses the defendant officer from the litigation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Officer Kenneth Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s failure‑to‑intervene claim under §1983.
Holdings
- Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law imposes a duty to intervene in the circumstances presented.
Key quotations
“Qualified immunity shields a state official from a suit for damages unless (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) that right was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”” (*10)
“Anderson’s motion for summary judgment on Benbow’s failure-to-intervene claim is granted.” (*10)
Factual background
In December 2024 a shooting occurred involving NYPD officers. Officer Anderson observed the shooting and had the opportunity to intervene but did not. Plaintiff alleges that Anderson’s failure to intervene violated his §1983 rights. The record contains no evidence that Anderson had a realistic opportunity to stop the shooting, nor any precedent establishing a duty to intervene in the circumstances.
Procedural history
Plaintiff James Benbow sued the City of New York and several NYPD officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law. The district court previously granted summary judgment on excessive‑force and assault claims, leaving the failure‑to‑intervene claim against Officer Kenneth Anderson pending. After supplemental briefing, the court concluded that qualified immunity bars the claim and granted summary judgment in favor of Anderson.