UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CG7285 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

MIGUEL SANCHEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 -againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. RALFI 

HERNANDEZ, P.O. ELROY SANCHEZ, 

SGT. PEDRO CASTILLO and P.O.s 

“JOHN DOE” #1-5 (said names being 

fictitious, as the true names are presently 

unknown), Individually and in their 

Official Capacities. 

 Defendants. 

 COMPLAINT

 AND DEMAND FOR

 JURY TRIAL

 07 CV 3253 (JGK) 

 Plaintiff, MIGUEL SANCHEZ, by his attorneys, MYERS & GALIARDO, LLP, 

complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff brings this action for compensatory damages, punitive damages and 

attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, for the wrongful acts of Defendants 

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. RALFI HERNANDEZ, P.O. ELROY SANCHEZ, 

SGT. PEDRO CASTILLO and P.O.s “JOHN DOE” #1-5 (said names being fictitious, as 

the true names are presently unknown), as Officers of the New York City Police 

Department, all acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority, in 

violation of Plaintiff’s rights, as said rights are secured by said statutes and the 

Constitutions of the State of New York and the United States. 

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 10
JURISDICTION

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and the Fourth, Fifth, 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

3. Jurisdiction is invoked herein pursuant to the aforementioned statutory and 

constitutional provisions and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, this being an action 

seeking redress for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights. 

 VENUE

4. Venue is properly laid in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), this being the 

District in which the claim arose. 

TRIAL BY JURY

5. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on each and every one of his claims as pled herein 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). 

PARTIES

6. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, a Hispanic American male, was a resident of 

New York County, New York. 

7. At all times relevant hereto, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter, 

“NYC”) is a municipality of the State of New York and owns, operates, manages, directs 

and controls the New York City Police Department, which employs the other named 

Defendants. 

8. At all times relevant to this action, defendants P.O. RALFI HERNANDEZ, P.O. 

ELROY SANCHEZ, SGT. PEDRO CASTILLO and P.O.s “JOHN DOE” #1-5 (said 

2

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 2 of 10
names being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), are and were police 

officers employed by the New York City Police Department (hereinafter, “NYPD”), and 

acting under color of state law. 

9. At all times relevant hereto and in all their actions described herein, said Defendants 

were acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and 

usages of the NYPD and NYC, pursuant to their authority as employees, servants and 

agents of the NYPD within the scope of employment and incidental to their otherwise 

lawful duties and functions as employees, servants, agents and police officers. 

10. NYC was responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, discipline, retention and 

promotion of the police officers, sergeants, and/or employees of the NYPD. 

FACTS

11. On May 3, 2005, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Plaintiff MIGUEL SANCHEZ exited 

his apartment building located at 601 West 175th Street, New York, New York. 

12. Plaintiff was an 18 year-old gainfully employed man with no criminal history. 

13. As Plaintiff walked up the street to get a sandwich at his local bodega, Defendant 

Police Officers ran up behind Plaintiff and ordered him to stop moving. 

14. Without warning, the Police Officers then forcibly placed Plaintiff in custody and 

searched his entire person. 

15. When Plaintiff demanded to know why he was being stopped, one of the Police 

Officers said, “for selling drugs”. Plaintiff told the officers that they had the wrong 

person and that he had just left his apartment building. 

3

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 3 of 10
16. Plaintiff was not in possession of any drugs or so-called “marked money”. 

Nevertheless, the Police Officers unlawfully and without probable cause placed Plaintiff 

under arrest in front of members of his community. 

17. Neighbors complained to the police officers that Plaintiff had not done anything 

wrong. Plaintiff again told the Police Officers that they were mistaken; that he didn’t 

have any drugs and had not sold any drugs. 

18. The Police Officers still handcuffed Plaintiff and transported him to the 33rd Precinct 

of the NYPD, where he was searched and processed for arraignment. 

19. At the Precinct, the Police Officers filled out false police reports and provided false 

and misleading information to the Prosecution which implicated Plaintiff in the 

commission of a crime. 

20. Plaintiff was charged with Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third 

Degree, P.L. 220.39; as he was allegedly observed participating in a drug sale with a 

separately charged individual in or about the area where he was arrested. 

21. On November 22, 2005, notwithstanding the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, all 

charges against Plaintiff were dismissed and sealed. 

22. As a result of the false claims against him, Plaintiff spent approximately 30 hours in 

custody and missed several days of work. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 

DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS

23. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 22 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

24. All of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, their agents, servants and employees 

were carried out under color of state law. 

4

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 4 of 10
25. All of the aforementioned acts deprived Plaintiff, MIGUEL SANCHEZ, of the rights, 

privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the Fourth, Fifth, 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

26. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual Defendants 

in their capacities as police officers, with the entire actual and/or apparent authority 

attendant thereto. 

27. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual Defendants 

in their capacities as police officers, pursuant to the customs, usages, practices, 

procedures, and rules of NYC and the NYPD, all under the supervision of ranking 

officers of said department. 

28. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law, 

engaged in conduct which constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of 

his/her respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the 

United States. 

29. By these actions, these Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of rights secured by the 

Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for which the Defendants are individually liable. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS

30. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 29 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

31. All of the aforementioned Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights by 

agreeing among themselves to falsely charge Plaintiff with crimes and testify falsely, as 

5

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 5 of 10
described above, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, for which the Defendants are 

individually liable. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 

FALSE AREST UNDER 42 U.S.C 1983

32. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 31 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

33. As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff, MIGUEL SANCHEZ, 

was subject to an illegal, improper and false arrest by the Defendants and taken into 

custody and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, confined, incarcerated and 

prosecuted by the Defendants in criminal proceedings, without any probable cause, 

privilege or consent. 

34. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended period of 

time, and he was put in fear for his safety and subjected to handcuffing, and other 

physical restraints, without probable cause. 

35. As a result of his false arrest, Plaintiff was subjected to humiliation, ridicule and 

disgrace. Plaintiff was discredited in the minds of many members of the community. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

36. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 35 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

37. Defendants were directly and actively involved in the initiation of criminal 

proceedings against Plaintiff. 

38. Defendants lacked probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. 

Defendants acted with malice in initiating criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. 

6

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 6 of 10
39. Defendants were directly and actively involved in the continuation of criminal 

proceedings against Plaintiff. 

40. Defendants lacked probable cause to continue criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. 

41. Defendants acted with malice in continuing criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. 

42. The criminal proceedings were terminated in favor of Plaintiff on or about November 

22, 2005, when the charges against him were dismissed and sealed. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 

MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

43. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 44 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

44. Defendants issued legal process to place Plaintiff under arrest. 

45. Defendants arrested Plaintiff in order to obtain a collateral objective outside the 

legitimate ends of the legal process. 

46. Defendants acted with intent to do harm to Plaintiff without excuse or justification. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

47. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 46 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 

48. Defendants P.O. RALFI HERNANDEZ, P.O. ELROY SANCHEZ, SGT. PEDRO 

CASTILLO and P.O.s “JOHN DOE” #1-5 (said names being fictitious, as the true names 

are presently unknown), arrested MIGUEL SANCHEZ despite a complete lack of 

7

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 7 of 10
evidence against him, notwithstanding their knowledge that said arrest would jeopardize 

Plaintiff’s liberty, well-being, safety and constitutional rights. 

49. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual Defendants 

in their capacities as police officers and officials, with the entire actual and/or apparent 

authority attendant thereto. 

50. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual Defendants 

in their capacities as police officers and officials pursuant to the customs, policies, 

usages, practices, procedures and rules of NYC and the NYPD, all under the supervision 

of ranking officers of said department. 

51. The aforementioned customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of 

NYC and the NYPD included, but were no limited to, initiating and continuing criminal 

proceedings without evidence of criminal activity. 

52. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of NYC and 

the NYPD constituted a deliberate indifference to the safety, well-being and 

constitutional rights of Plaintiff MIGUEL SANCHEZ. 

53. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of NYC and 

the NYPD were the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations suffered 

by Plaintiff MIGUEL SANCHEZ as alleged herein. 

54. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of NYC and 

the NYPD were the moving force behind the constitutional violation suffered by Plaintiff 

MIGUEL SANCHEZ as alleged herein. 

8

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 8 of 10
55. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law, were 

directly and actively involved in violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiff MIGUEL 

SANCHEZ. 

56. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law, 

acquiesced in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by subordinate police officers, and 

were directly responsible for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

57. Defendant NYC, as municipal policymaker in the training and supervision of 

Defendant police officers, have pursued a policy and custom of deliberate indifference to 

the rights of persons in their domain who suffer violation of their right to freedom from 

the use of excessive and unreasonable force and freedom from deprivation of Liberty 

without Due Process of law in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments 

to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Constitution and 

laws of the State of New York. 

58. All of the foregoing acts by Defendants deprived Plaintiff MIGUEL SANCHEZ of 

federally protected rights, including, but not limited to, the right: 

a. Not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law; 

b. To be free from seizure and arrest not based upon probable cause; 

c. To be free from unlawful imprisonment; 

d. To be free from unwarranted and malicious criminal prosecution; 

e. Not to have cruel and unusual punishment imposed upon him; and 

f. To receive equal protection under the law. 

9

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 9 of 10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment and prays for the following relief, 

jointly and severally, against the Defendants: 

1. Special and compensatory damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED 

THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. 

2. Punitive damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND 

($500,000.00) DOLLARS. 

3. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and 

4. Such other and further relief as this Court seems just and proper. 

DATED: New York, New York 

 April 20, 2007 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

________________________________ 

 Christopher D. Galiardo (CG7285) 

 

MYERS & GALIARDO, LLP 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2710 

 New York, New York 10168 

 (212) 986-5900 

 

10

Case 1:07-cv-03253-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 10 of 10