J udge G r egoryW
. C arm an of t he U ni t ed S t at es C our t of Int ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng * bydes i gnat i on. 09-0941 -cv Ri chards o n v . N ew

Y o r k Ci ty UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 20 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A PP E ND I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld att he D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i tyof N ew Y or k, on t he 24 dayof M ar ch, tw o t hous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W
. HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges , GR E GOR Y W. CA RMAN,

Judge
. *

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - RI CH AR D R I CH AR DS ON, P l ai nt i

f f

-Appel l ant , v. N o. 09- 0941- cv NE W YORK C I T Y, D ef endant , NEW Y ORK CI TY P OLI CE, L. I
. R. R. P OLI CE CO M M AN D D I S, ALL J OH N D OE O FF I CERS, I TS T O U R C O M M A N D , O F F IC E R F U E N T E S , T A X ID 0 8 6 7 2 9 , OF F I CE R S GT
. S M I T H, D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -T hi s cas e w as as s i gned t o M agi s t r at e Judge M i chae l H
. D ol i ngerw i t h t he cons ent 1 of both par t i es . See 28 U
. S. C
. § 636( c) ; Fed. R
. C i v. P. 73. 2 A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : R IC H A R D R IC H A R D S O N , pro se , B r ookl y n, N ew Y or k. A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E S : M I C H A E L G
. K R U Z Y N S K I, L ew i s J ohs A val l one A vi l es , L L P, R i verhead, N ew Y or k. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r the S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (M ic h a e l H . D o lin g e r, Magis tr at e Judge ). 1 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D t hatt he j udgm entent er ed on N ovember12, 2008, i s AF F I RMED
. P ro se p lai n ti ff

R ic h a rd R icha rdso n ap p ea ls from a jud g m en t entere d af ter a jury
ver di cti n favorof def

endantO ffi cerR aym ond Fuent es on R i char ds on’ s unl aw ful arr es tand
exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m s under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983. W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i t yw i th t he f a c ts a n d th e re c o rd o f p rio r p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e re f e re n c e o n ly a s n e c e ss a ryto e x p lain
o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f

f i r m. 1. A r gum ent s C oncerni ng D efe ndant s O t herthan Fuent es R i char ds on compl ai ns t hat , other t han O ffi cerFuent es and pos s i bl ySer geantSm i th, no defe ndant s w ere p r es entatt r i al
. T hi s ar gum ents t at es no gr ound forr el i ef be caus e the
co m p lai n t w as b rou g h t aga inst an en ti re p o li ce d istri ct an d u n n am ed “Jo h n D o e” o ff icers
w h o c o u ld n o t h a v e a p p e a re d
.3

T o t he ext ent R i char ds on chal l enges the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s entr yof j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw on hi s cl ai m s agai ns t t he M etr opol i t an T r ans por t at i on A uthor i t ypol i ce a nd unnamed offi cer s , t hatar gum entfai l s becaus e R i char ds on di d notadduce s uffi ci entevi dence ei t her( 1) t y i ng Ser geantSm i t h t o t he compl ai ned- of conduc t , or( 2) i dent i fy i ng a depa r t m entcus t om
orpol i cyr es pons i bl e fort he al l eged de pr i vat i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See M onel l v. N
. Y
. Ci t yD e p’ tof Soc
. Se r vs . , 43 6 U
. S. 65 8, 69 4- 95 ( 19 78 ) ; s e e ge ne r a l l yFe d. R. Ci v. P. 50( a) ( 1) ( “I f a pa r t yhas been f ul l yhear d on an i s s ue dur i ng a j urytr i al and the courtfi nds t hat a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y wou l d n o t h a v e a l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s t o f i n d for t he p a rty on t hat i ssue, t he court m ay . . . res olve t he i ssue against t he party . . . an d g ra n t a
m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t as a m att er o f law ag ains t th e p arty . ”). 2. P oli ce Invest i gati on of R i chardson ’s A rr est O n a p p e a l, R ich a rd so n a rg u e s th a t h e sh o u ld h a v e p re v a iled b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n ts fai l e d t o r e v i e w s u r v e i l l a n c e t a p e s s h o wi n g t h a t h e d i d n o t s t e a l a s o d a . W e ar e not persuaded
. T he juryw as ent i t l ed to cr editO ffi cer Fue ntes ’s t est i m on yand t he d esk appea r ance t i cket , w hi ch s t at ed thatR i char ds on w as arrested notfortheft , butr atherfor di s or der l ycondu ct . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Payne, 591 F. 3d 46, 60 ( 2d C i r . 2010) (“ A ss e ss m e n ts o f

w itn e ss c re d ib ili tya n d c h o ice s b e tw e e n c o m p e ti n g in f e re n c e s lie so lely
w i t hi n t he provi nce of t he j ur y . ”)
. A ccor di ngl y , t he j ury coul d r eas onabl yhave c oncl uded t hatt her e w as pr obabl e ca us e forR i char ds on ’ s a rr e s tabs entanyi nves t i gat i on i nt o t he al l eged th e f t.4

3. J ur ySel ect i on R i c h a r d s o n ’s ju ry se le c tio n c h a lle n g e s a re a ls o u n a v a ilin g . A d is tr ic t c o u rt e n j o ys
c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n d u c t i n g v o i r d i r e , a n d “ m a y p e r m i tt h e p a r t i e s o rt h e i ra t t o r n e ys t o exami ne pr os pect i ve j ur or s orm ayi t s el f do s o. ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 47( a) ; s ee Cruz v. J or dan, 357 F. 3d 2 6 9 , 2 7 0 (2d C i r . 2004) ; St ephan v. M ar l i n Fi r earm s C o. , 353 F. 2d 819, 822 ( 2d C i r . 1965)
. H er e, t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on beca us e i tadopt ed R i char ds on’ s pr opos ed l i s tof ques t i ons and adde d new ques t i ons thatR i char ds on r eques t ed
a t th e o u tse t o f ju r y s e le c tio n . F u rth e r, ita f f o rd e d R ich a rd so n th e o p p o rtu n ityto o b jec t to
m att ers reg ard ing juryselec ti o n , alth o u g h h e d id n o t. F inally , the re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rt R i char ds on’ s cl ai m t hathe i nform ed the courtthathe knew the j uryfor eman. 4
. De f

e n s e Co u n s e l ’ s Qu e s t i o n s Re g a r d i n g Ri c h a r d s o n ’ s I n c o me R i char ds on’ s ar gum entt hatdefe ns e counse l i m pr oper l yques t i oned hi m conce r ni ng h is in c o m e is n o t p re se rv e d f o r a p p e llate re v iew b e c a u se h e d id n o t o b jec t to th e q u e stio n in the d istri ct co u rt . S ee W esti n g h o u se C red itC o rp. v . D ’U rso, 37 1 F
. 3 d 9 6 , 1 0 3 (2d C ir
. 2004)
. E ven i f w e w er e t o exer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on t o cons i deran unpr es erved i s s ue, s ee V ir g il io v
. C ity o f N ew Y o rk, 4 0 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 , 1 1 6 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ), w e w o u ld ide n ti fyn o erro r. B eca us e R i char ds on t es t i fi ed t hat he w as hom el es s and t hatt he def endant s w er e mot i vat ed b yth a t f a c t to v io late h is c iv il righ ts, d e f e n se c o u n s e l w a s p e rm itt e d to in q u ire a s to R i char ds on’ s i ncome i n an att empt t o underm i ne the cr edi bi l i t y of hi s t es t i m ony . See Fed. R
. E v id. 61 1 (b).5

5. G ener al C hal l enge t o J uryV er di ct T o the e x tent R icha rdso n ’s brief ca n b e re ad as a g en era l c h all en g e to th e jury ’s
v e rd ict, R ich a rd so n d id n o t p re se rv e a n yp a rticu lar iss u e in a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 50, and ther e i s no appar entnon- frivo lou s ch al l enge thatcan be m ade. C er t ai nl y , t he ver di ctcannotbe s ai d t o be “w hol l yw i t houtl egal s uppor t . ” J acque s v. D iM arz io, I n c., 3 8 6 F
. 3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 9 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e have cons i der ed pl ai nt i ff’ s otherar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thatt heyl ack
m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt