15-681

Sedunova v. City of New York

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 15th 4 day of June, two thousand sixteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 NATASHA SEDUNOVA, 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 15-681

16

17 CITY OF NEW YORK, MATTHEW COLLINS,

18 MICHAEL HOPKINS, 

19 Defendants-Appellees,

20

21 CHRIS ANDY GRARY, ANGELA MYERS, JOHN

22 and JANE DOES 1-10, (the names of

23 John and Jane doe being fictitious as

24 the true names are presently

25 unknown), JOHNE DOE 1-2, JOHN OR JANE

26 DOE 3-7, CHARLES HYNES, ED PURCE,

27 Defendants.

28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

1
1

2 FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON, Goodwin

3 Procter LLP, New York, New York.

4

5 J. Andrew Kent, on the brief,

6 Lincoln Square Legal Services at

7 Fordham Law School, New York,

8 New York.

9

10 FOR APPELLEES: INGRID R. GUSTAFSON (with

11 Richard Dearing and Devin Slack

12 on the brief), for Zachary W.

13 Carter, New York City

14 Corporation Counsel, New York,

15 New York.

16

17 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

18 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Johnson, J.).

19

20 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

21 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

22 AFFIRMED. 

23

24 Plaintiff Natasha Sedunova appeals from the judgment of

25 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

26 New York (Johnson, J.), dismissing her complaint for failure

27 to state a claim. The complaint alleges, under 42 U.S.C.

28 § 1983, that NYPD detectives Matthew Collins and Michael

29 Hopkins, and seven John Doe defendants (collectively, the

30 “defendants”) violated her civil rights, specifically,

31 (1) that she was denied a fair trial because her confession

32 was fabricated, and (2) that the knowing use of fabricated

33 evidence constituted a malicious prosecution. 

34

35 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for

36 failure to state a claim, and we accept all factual

37 allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in

38 favor of the plaintiff. N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v.

39 Royal Bank of Scot. Grp., PLC, 709 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir.

40 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

41 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

42 presented for review. 

43

44 1. The plaintiff claims that her confession was

45 fabricated because it was produced as the result of coercive

46 interrogation techniques. When a police officer creates

47 false information likely to influence a jury’s decision and

2
1 forwards that information to prosecutors, the accused’s

2 constitutional right to a fair trial is violated. See

3 Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir.

1997).1 4 Failure to administer Miranda warnings alone cannot

5 serve as the basis of a § 1983 action; however, a § 1983

6 claim may arise if coercion was applied to obtain

7 inculpatory statements, and the statements thereby obtained

8 were used against the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. 

9 Deshawn E. by Charlotte E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 346 (2d

10 Cir. 1998) (citing Weaver v. Brenner, 40 F.3d 527, 535 (2d

11 Cir. 1994)); see also Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128, 138

12 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Miranda violations, absent coercion, do not

13 rise to the level of constitutional violations actionable

14 under § 1983.”).

15

16 A plaintiff alleging coercion must allege more than

17 that police told her she was a suspect, suggested that it

18 would be to her benefit to cooperate, or promised leniency

19 in exchange for cooperation. See United States v. Ruggles,

20 70 F.3d 262, 265 (2d Cir. 1995). A plaintiff must point to

21 circumstances indicating that she could not make a knowing

22 and voluntary decision. See United States v. Taylor, 745

23 F.3d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 2014). 

24

25 The factual allegations in this case, even accepted as

26 true and viewed in the light most favorable to Sedunova, do

27 not amount to coercion sufficient to sustain a § 1983 claim. 

28 The salient allegations are that John Does 1 and 2 tried to

29 “convince” her that it would be “better for her” and “good

30 for her” if she confessed to the murder and claimed self31 defense, and that she was told that she would be “free to

32 leave” if she confessed. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-35. None of the

33 allegations amount to circumstances under which the

34 plaintiff could not make a knowing and voluntary decision. 

35

1 Although Sedunova attempts to plead a fabrication

claim, she has not alleged that her confession was forged

(she acknowledges that she made the videotaped confession

and adopted the written confession), nor has she alleged any

other circumstances that lead to a reasonable inference that

any defendant knew her confession was false when made. See

Ricciuti, 124 F.3d at 129-30. Accordingly, we analyze her

claim as one alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment

under § 1983.

3
1 2. The complaint also alleges that the knowing use of

2 the fabricated confession constituted a malicious

3 prosecution. See Jocks, 316 F.3d at 138. However, as

4 discussed above, the fabrication claim is rejected because

5 the confession was not coerced. The use of the confession

6 therefore was not the use of fabricated evidence. 

7

8 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in the

9 plaintiff’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment

10 of the district court.

11

12 FOR THE COURT:

13 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

14

4