Scott Dingwall v. Niagara County Sheriff's Office et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York grants Scott Dingwall leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court dismisses claims against several non-suable municipal departments and official-capacity claims, while allowing an individual-capacity Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Officer A. Mahmood to proceed. The court dismisses or permits amendment of other claims, including the failure-to-protect claim concerning Dingwall’s brother’s death, and declines to intervene in any pending state criminal prosecution under Younger abstention.

Holdings

1. The court granted Dingwall's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he satisfied the statutory requirements and submitted the required authorization and certification.
2. The Niagara County Sheriff's Office, Niagara County Medical Department, Town of Lewiston Police Department, and Town of Niagara Police Department were not independent entities subject to suit; the court substituted Niagara County, the Town of Lewiston, and the Town of Niagara as defendants.
3. The official-capacity claims against Officers King and Mahmood were dismissed as redundant of the claims against the municipalities.
4. The official-capacity and municipal claims were dismissed for failure to allege that the challenged conduct resulted from an official municipal custom, policy, or practice, with leave to amend.
5. The individual-capacity failure-to-protect claim against King was dismissed for failure to state a plausible constitutional claim, with leave to amend.
6. The complaint plausibly stated an individual-capacity Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Mahmood, and that claim could proceed to service.
7. The allegations that Mahmood pursued and struck Dingwall with a police vehicle plausibly stated state-law assault and battery claims, which could proceed to service.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dingwall satisfied the statutory requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether the complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim based on law-enforcement and jail personnel's alleged failure to protect Dingwall's brother.
3. Whether the municipal departments named as defendants were independently suable entities.
4. Whether the official-capacity claims against the individual officers were redundant of claims against the municipalities.
5. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged municipal liability under § 1983 without identifying an official policy, custom, or practice.
6. Whether the alleged intentional striking of Dingwall with a police vehicle stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process excessive-force claim.
7. Whether the same allegations plausibly stated New York assault and battery claims.

Disposition

other