![]() Schembri (“Schembri”) and former State Attorney General G. Plaintiff appears to include former New York City Department of Corrections Commissioner Anthony J. 1991)(per curiam).īecause plaintiff fails to allege personal involvement on the part of some of the defendants, his claims against them must be dismissed. In addition, where the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the complaint liberally. A motion to dismiss should not be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Yusuf v. All factual allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and the complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the function of the district court is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to weigh the evidence that may be offered at trial. Hill allegedly met State defendant Investigator William Kilgallon (sued herein as “Kilgallon”) “somewhere on the New York State Thruway where Plaintiff was then taken against his will by Defendant Kilgallen, shackled in chains, taken to Albany Police Court in Albany, New York, and deposited there to be 'booked' on open charges.” Compl., ¶ 38. Hill and the other two officers brought plaintiff to Manhattan Criminal Court and then transported him to Albany in the back seat of a small car where he was “driven for over 4 hours in a cramped, painful position with hands chained behind his back.” Compl., ¶¶ 34, 37. According to plaintiff, the state officers did not inform him that he was under arrest, did not read him his Miranda rights, and did not present him with a lawful warrant. ![]() When plaintiff refused to speak or identify himself, the officers allegedly arrested plaintiff and “forcibly put cuffs on him.” Compl., ¶ 32. State defendant Investigator Karen Hill (“Hill”) and two other state police officers allegedly began to interrogate plaintiff. *2 On July 12, 1994, Corrections Department attorney Robert Moriber ordered plaintiff to report to the Inspector General's office at the DOC. Plaintiff then alleges he was forced to pay Mays a $500.00 ransom. The state officers took plaintiff to Manhattan Criminal Court to be “booked.” Murphy Aff., ¶ 39. Again plaintiff alleges that the state officers did not present him with a lawful warrant for his arrest, did not inform him that he was under arrest, and did not read him his Miranda rights. Croft (“Croft”) grabbed plaintiff and “put him in chains” while Fernandez, State defendant Investigator Charles Mays (“Mays”), and another officer from the State Department of Law observed. After plaintiff refused to speak or identify himself, plaintiff alleges State defendant Investigator R. Plaintiff believes the room into which he was called was equipped with recording devices. Plaintiff's affidavit indicates that he was called to the DOC to discuss alleged “deranged” letters that plaintiff had been writing to Assistant Attorney General Nancy Snyder (“Snyder”). On April 21, 1994, plaintiff received a written request from New York City defendant Corrections Officer Robert Fernandez (“Fernandez”) to appear at the New York City Department of Corrections (“DOC”) headquarters at 9:00 a.m. ![]() Plaintiff allegedly learned that it was “common practice to refuse a hearing on probable cause, that is a common practice to refuse a hearing for charges and/or bail until submitting to fingerprinting.” Murphy Aff., ¶ 19. ![]() Moreover, plaintiff maintains he was never brought before a “neutral judge for a 'probable cause' hearing.” Compl., ¶ 17. Plaintiff also alleges the state officers did not read him his Miranda rights and did not present him with a lawful warrant for his arrest. After plaintiff refused to identify himself, plaintiff alleges Neuberger forced him to relinquish his off-duty weapon through coercion, searched and seized his personal property “without a lawful warrant or permission,” and “placed in chains” against his will while Defendant Mulhall and the other officer/supervisor looked on. Neuberger allegedly handed a sheet of paper to plaintiff which stated that plaintiff had failed to file an income tax return. According to plaintiff's complaint and affidavit 1, plaintiff went to the New York State Department of Law in Albany, New York on Augwhere he met with New York State defendant Senior Investigator John Neuberger (sued herein as “Neuberger”) in the presence of State defendant Investigator Harry Mulhall (“Mulhall”) and another employee of the New York State Department of Law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |