Jennifer Garcia Jimenez, on behalf of her minor daughter “J.M.”, Franklin Campoverde, and Joan Manuel Jimenez v. County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Detective Solon Parker, Suffolk County Police Commissioner Rodney K. Harrison, Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond A. Tierney, Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney William C. Nash, Police Officer Daniel Lillis, Town of East Hampton, East Hampton Town Police Chief Michael D. Sarlo, East Hampton Town Police Detective Ryan Hogan, East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyac, “State” “Does” 1-20 and “Federal” “Roes” 1-20

Summary

The Eastern District of New York adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court held that the motion was procedurally deficient under Local Civil Rules 15.1 and 7.1 and that the proposed amendments would be futile because they failed to plead individualized failure-to-intervene claims or otherwise state viable claims. The action arises from the alleged use of excessive force and related conduct during execution of a search warrant at plaintiffs’ home.

Holdings

1. The motion to amend was properly denied because plaintiffs failed to include a redlined version of the proposed second amended complaint as required by Local Civil Rule 15.1 and submitted a declaration instead of a memorandum of law as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1.
2. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed second amended complaint did not state plausible claims that could withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
3. The proposed second amended complaint failed to state failure-to-intervene claims because it relied on impermissible group pleading and did not allege, as to each defendant, a realistic opportunity to intervene, knowledge that a constitutional violation was occurring, and failure to take reasonable steps to intervene.
4. The plaintiffs could not amend their failure-to-intervene claims to rely on alleged denial of access to a toilet because the court had already dismissed the related detention claims and, in any event, the temporary deprivation alleged did not amount to an objective constitutional violation absent serious physical harm or a serious risk of contamination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation recommending denial of leave to file a second amended complaint.
2. Whether the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Local Civil Rules 15.1 and 7.1 justified denial of the motion to amend.
3. Whether the proposed second amended complaint plausibly pleaded excessive-force, assault-and-battery, negligence, and failure-to-intervene claims against the proposed individual defendants.
4. Whether the plaintiffs could amend their failure-to-intervene claims based on alleged denial of access to sanitation facilities during execution of the search warrant.

Disposition

other