Opinion
5:10-CV-1063 (NAM/GHL).
May 17, 2011
James A. Meggesto, Esq., Meggesto Crossett Valerino, L.L.P, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
James P. McGinty, Esq., Asst. Corporation Counsel, Juanita Perez Williams, Esq., Corporation Counsel, City of Syracuse, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit following an incident involving various officers of the Syracuse Police Department in June 2009. Plaintiff asserts that he was standing with a group of friends on a street corner in the City of Syracuse when they were approached by a number of police officers on the basis that they were in violation of a City ordinance which regulates and prohibits the gathering of crowds on City sidewalks. When plaintiff attempted to leave, he claims he was chased by two officers and detained. After he was under police control, plaintiff asserts that he was punched in the face and fell to the ground, hitting his head on the pavement. Once he was on the ground, plaintiff alleges that two officers repeatedly punched and kicked him and then forcefully put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Plaintiff's complaint alleges various violations of his civil rights by the police officers and the defendant City pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, false imprisonment, assault, negligence, and the unconstitutionality of the City of Syracuse "Disorderly Crowds" ordinance. The City has moved for dismissal of the various claims against individual officers and dismissal of the entire complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes said motion except to the extent that plaintiff consents to the dismissal of defendants Carns, Cope, Novitsky and Tassini.
In addition, the Court observes that plaintiff consents to dismissal of all claims against Officer "Murphy" who is not named as a defendant in this action. However, it is also notable that defendants requested that all claims against Officer "Murphy" be dismissed.
II. DISCUSSION A. Conclusory Allegations and Failure to Support § 1983 Claim with Substantive Law
B. Official Capacity of Defendant Officers
42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourth Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983 42 U.S.C. § 1983
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is DENIED except to the extent that the claims against defendants Carns, Cope, Novitsky and Tassini are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.