University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Garcia v. Bloomberg PN-NY-0030
Docket / Court 1:11-cv-06957 ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Policing
Special Collection Occupy
Case Summary
On October 4, 2011, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs' lawsuit stems from a demonstration and march crossing the Brooklyn ... read more >
On October 4, 2011, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs' lawsuit stems from a demonstration and march crossing the Brooklyn Bridge that took place on October 1, 2011. The plaintiffs alleged that during that demonstration, the New York Police Department "engaged in a mass false arrest of approximately 700 persons who participated in, or were in proximity to," the demonstration and that "[t]he NYPD, as a matter of policy and practice, engages in unconstitutional tactics to disturb, disrupt, penalize, infringe upon and criminalize constitutionally protected speech and assembly." Compl 3-4. They claimed that this conduct violated rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, sought class certification, damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs also sought entry of an order declaring the arrests in question to be null and void, and authorizing each individual class member to deny that such an arrest ever occurred in response to any inquiry, such as an employment application.

On December 12, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. This added several named plaintiffs to the litigation as well as additional claims, namely claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under N.Y. General Municipal
Law § 50-e. Second Am. Compl 1, 39. The Second Amended Complaint also amended the remedies sought, adding a paragraph requesting:

Entry of a declaratory judgment that N.Y. City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) parading without a permit code provision is unconstitutional, facially or as applied to the extent it is applied as a strict liability offense, and entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement as a strict liability offense (i.e., enforcement in the absence of fair notice or warnings/orders to those subject to potential arrest);

Id. 42.

This was added in response to the defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that the Fourth Amendment claims should be dismissed because N.Y. City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) had provided the arresting officers with probable cause for the arrests. New York City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) provides that a "procession, parade or race shall be permitted upon any street or in any public place only after a written permit therefor has been obtained from the police commissioner."

On December 23, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The defendants advanced two main arguments, namely (1) that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed for the arrests, and (2) that the plaintiffs' claims for damages against the City and its officials should be dismissed since the rights at issue were not clearly established. On the qualified immunity point, the defendants argued that probable cause existed for the arrests because the plaintiffs participated in a "parade" without a permit in violation of N.Y. City Administrative Code, § 10-110, and that the video proof on which the plaintiffs relied in their complaint demonstrated that the marchers violated Penal Law § 240.20(5) by "obstruct[ing] vehicular ... traffic" on the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge.

On June 7, 2012, the District Court (Judge Jed S. Rakoff) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the Court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the officers who arrested them, but dismissed the claims for damages against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Police Commissioner Kelly.

In denying the motion to dismiss the claims against the arresting officers, the Court explained that the defense of qualified immunity at this stage hinged on whether it would "be clear to reasonable police officers, in the situation the defendant officers confronted, that they lacked probable cause to believe (i) that the plaintiff demonstrators had committed a crime and (ii) that the plaintiff demonstrators had received fair warning?" Garcia v. Bloomberg, 865 F. Supp. 2d 478, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Court found that there were two criminal statutes that the plaintiffs apparently violated. However, the Court found that the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleged that the plaintiffs failed to receive fair warning, and thus concluded that the defense of qualified immunity did not defeat the claims at this stage of the litigation.

As to the claims for damages against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Police Commissioner Kelly, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege such claims. The plaintiffs had advanced three arguments for these claims. First, they argued that the existence of "Disorder Control Guidelines," the arrests of protesters in 2003 and 2004, and arrests that occurred a week before the incident in this case, all supported the conclusion that the City has a policy of conducting mass false arrests in order to discourage protesting. Second, the plaintiffs argued that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly either ratified or directly participated in the alleged constitutional violations by failing to act or investigate the incidents. Finally, the plaintiffs argued that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly faced liability based on their failure to train the arresting officers. The Court rejected each of these three arguments, finding the facts cited in support of them too attenuated or implausible to support actionable claims, and thus dismissed those claims. Id.at 491-94.

On June 28, 2012, the officer defendants appealed the District Court's denial of their motion to dismiss the complaint against them on qualified immunity grounds. The defendants argued that the District Court had erred in concluding that the complaint, and the other materials that could properly be considered on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, did not establish that the defendants had probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for disorderly conduct.

The Second Circuit disagreed. On August 21, 2014, a divided Second Circuit (Judges Guido Calabresi and Gerard E. Lynch, with Judge Lynch writing the opinion) affirmed the District Court's ruling. The Second Circuit found that:

Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true, as we must, we believe that they have adequately alleged actionable conduct. Plaintiffs have alleged that the police directed the demonstrators' activity along the route of their march, at times specifically condoning, or even directing, behavior that on its face would violate traffic laws. When the bottleneck at the pedestrian walkway of the Bridge led the demonstrators to pool into the roadway, the police did not immediately direct them out of the street, and when they did undertake to issue such a warning to clear the roadway, they did so in a way that no reasonable officer who observed the warning could have believed was audible beyond the first rank of the protesters at the front of the crowd. According to plaintiffs' account, the police then retreated back onto the Bridge in a way that would reasonably have been understood, and was understood, by the bulk of the demonstrators to be a continuation of the earlier practice of allowing the march to proceed in violation of normal traffic rules.

We emphasize that the procedural posture of this case presents a formidable challenge to defendants' position. They urge us to find that qualified immunity is established for all defendants based on plaintiffs' version of events (plus a few inconclusive photos and videos). The evidence, once a full record is developed, may contradict plaintiffs' allegations, or establish that some or all of the defendants were not aware of the facts that plaintiffs allege would have alerted them to the supposed implicit permission. We express no view on whether some or all of the defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity at a later stage of the case. But to reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we would have to say that on the basis of plaintiffs' account of events, no officer who participated in or directed the arrests could have thought that plaintiffs were invited onto the roadway and then arrested without fair warning of the revocation of this invitation. Since we cannot do so on this limited record, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Garcia v. Does, No. 12-2634-cv, 2014 WL 4099270, at *9 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) (footnotes and citation omitted).

Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented. She argued that the majority had turned the qualified immunity standard upside down, and would have found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at *13.

Discovery in the case had been stayed pending the appeal. With this resolved, as of September 20, 2014, discovery is ongoing.

Greg in den Berken - 09/20/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Free Exercise Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Unreasonable search and seizure
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Failure to discipline
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
False arrest
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action State law
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) City of New York
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are several Occupy Wall Street protesters who claim that they were arrested while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011, during an Occupy Wall Street protest. They are suing the City of New York on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, contending that these arrests were unlawful.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Federal Enforcement of Police Reform
By: Stephen Rushin (University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program )
Citation: 82 Fordham Law Review 3189 (2014)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Panopticism for Police: Structural Reform Bargaining and Police Regulation by Data-Driven Surveillance
By: Mary D. Fan (University of Washington)
Citation: Forthcoming, 87 Washington L. Rev. __ (2012).
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  What Happens When Police Are Forced to Reform?
Written: Nov. 13, 2015
By: Kimbriell Kelly, Sarah Childress and Steven Rich (Frontline/Post)
Citation: Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2015)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:11-cv-06957 (S.D.N.Y.) 01/29/2013
PN-NY-0030-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action Complaint 10/04/2011
PN-NY-0030-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint 12/12/2011
PN-NY-0030-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims Against the Arresting Officers; Granting Motions to Dismiss Claims Against the City] 06/07/2012 (865 F.Supp.2d 478) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0030-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Circuit Opinion [Affirming District Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss Complaint on Grounds of Qualified Immunity] 08/21/2014 (764 F.3d 170)
PN-NY-0030-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Calabresi, Guido (Second Circuit)
PN-NY-0030-0004
Livingston, Debra Ann (Second Circuit)
PN-NY-0030-0004
Lynch, Gerard E. (Second Circuit, S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0030-0004
Rakoff, Jed Saul (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0030-0003 | PN-NY-0030-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Costello, Andrea Hope (District of Columbia)
PN-NY-0030-9000
Messineo, Carl L (District of Columbia)
PN-NY-0030-0001 | PN-NY-0030-0002 | PN-NY-0030-9000
Verheyden-Hilliard, Mara E (District of Columbia)
PN-NY-0030-0001 | PN-NY-0030-0002 | PN-NY-0030-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Larkin, Arthur G. III (New York)
PN-NY-0030-9000
Weiss, Dara Lynn (New York)
PN-NY-0030-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -