16-11 41

Pluma v. C ity o f New York



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F A P P EA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R C U I T



## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E C E D EN T I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AF T E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R ULE O F A P PE L L

A T E P R O C E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D O C U M EN T F I LE D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P PEN

D I X OR A

N E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D B Y C OU

N S E L

.
At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, on th e 10 day of Ap ril, two t housa nd se vente en.

th

PRESE NT: JON O . NEW MAN, DENNI S JAC OBS, Circu it Ju dges, LEWIS A. K

APLAN , * Distr ict Judge,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X ROBER T PLUMA,

Plain tiff- Appel lant,

-v.- 16-11 41 * *

CITY OF NE W YORK,

Defen dant- Appel lee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

Jud ge Le wis A . Kap lan, of th e Uni ted S tates Dist rict * Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork, sitti ng by desig natio n.

We respe ctful ly di rect the C lerk of Co urt t o ame nd * * the c aptio n.

1FOR A PPELLANT: DAVID A. T HOMPS ON, E sq., Steck low & Thom pson, New York, NY.

FOR A PPELL EE: MELAN IE T. WEST (wit h Deb orah A. Brenn er on the brief ), fo r Zacha ry W. Cart er, C orpor ation Couns el of the City of Ne w Yor k, New Y ork, NY.

Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Presk a, C. J.).

UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be AFFIR MED I N PAR T, VACATED IN PART and REMAN DED

.
Rober t Plu ma ap peals fromthe judgm ent o f the Unit ed State s Dis trict Cour t for the South ern D istri ct of New York (Pres ka, C .J.). Plu ma su ed th e Cit y of New Y ork ( “the City” ) and vari ous p olice offi cers, asse rting stat e and feder al cl aims based on t he po lice offic ers’ alleg edly

unrea sonab le us e of force duri ng an “Occ upy W all S treet ” prote st. After view ing v ideo recor dings of t he pe rtine nt event s, th e dis trict cour t gra nted judgm ent o n the plea dings in fa vor o f the defe ndant s. S ee Fe d. R. Civ. P. 1 2(c). We
assum e the part ies’ famil iarit y wit h the unde rlyin g fac ts, the p roced ural histo ry, a nd th e iss ues p resen ted f or re view.

We re view a gra nt of judg ment on th e ple ading s in the

same manne r as we re view a mot ion t o dis miss for f ailur e to state a cl aim. Clev eland v. C aplaw Ente rs., 448 F .3d 5 18, 521 ( 2d Ci r. 20 06). We g enera lly a ccept all of th e compl aint’ s fac tual alleg ation s as true, draw all reaso nable infer ences in t he pl ainti ff’s favor , and ask wheth er th e compl aint sets forth a pl ausib le cl aim f or re lief under de

novo revie w. S ee id .; As hcrof t v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009 ). H oweve r, we acce pt th e fac tual alleg ation s as true only “to t he ex tent that they are n ot co ntrad icted by .

. . video evid ence. ” Ga rcia v. Do es, 7 79 F. 3d 84 , 87- 88 (2 d Cir. 2014)

.
1. Plu ma co ntend s tha t the dist rict court shou ld no t have consi dered vide o evi dence on a moti on fo r jud gment on the p leadi ngs; defen dants coun ter t hat, becau se Pl uma’s first amen ded c ompla int i nclud ed vi deo s tills , the dist rict court was entit led t o vie w the six compl ete v ideos from

2which the still s wer e tak en. We ne ed no t res olve this

argum ent b ecaus e we concl ude t hat P luma faile d to adequ ately objec t to consi derat ion o f (at leas t) th ree o f tho se vi deos, denom inate d Exh ibits F, G , and L. Conse quent ly, t he distr ict c ourt could cons ider those vide os.

2. Exhib its F , G, and L are suffi cient to j ustif y grant ing q ualif ied i mmuni ty to the indiv idual poli ce offic ers w ith r espec t to Pluma ’s fe deral clai ms. Altho ugh the d istri ct co urt g rante d jud gment on t he me rits rathe r than on qu alifi ed im munit y, th is Co urt m ay af firm on an y basis adeq uatel y sup porte d by the r ecord . Ri verwo ods Chapp aqua Corp. v. M arine Midl and B ank, N.A., 30 F .3d 3 39, 343 ( 2d Ci r. 19 94). “Qua lifie d imm unity prot ects publi c offic ials from liabi lity for c ivil damag es wh en on e of two condi tions is s atisf ied: (a) t he de fenda nt’s actio n did not viola te cl early esta blish ed la w, or (b) it wa s obj ectiv ely

reaso nable for the d efend ant t o bel ieve that his a ction did not v iolat e suc h law .” G arcia , 779 F.3d at 9 2 (qu otati on marks omit ted). “[Q ]uali fied immun ity p rotec ts al l but the plain ly in compe tent or th ose w ho kn owing ly vi olate the law.” Walcz yk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 ( 2d Ci r. 20 07) ( quota tion marks omit ted).

Exhib its F , G, and L show a tu multu ous s cene in th e porti on of Zuco tti P ark t hey d epict . Me tal b arric ades that polic e had plac ed ar ound the p ark h ad be en di smant led. Polic e wer e att empti ng to repl ace b arric ades, and at ti mes prote sters and polic e con tende d for poss essio n of the barri cades that some prot ester s wer e try ing t o mov e, inclu ding the b arric ade t hat c aused Plum a’s f all. The video s als o sho w tha t pol ice u sed a spra y, wh ich t he pa rties agree was peppe r spr ay, w hen t he ba rrica de, h aving been raise d int o the air, pose d a t hreat to t he po lice and t he prote sters

.

In su ch ci rcums tance s, qu alifi ed im munit y shi elds the polic e off icers fromPlum a’s f edera l cla ims. See Garci a, 779 F .3d a t 92. At a mi nimum , it was “ objec tivel y
reaso nable ” for a po lice offic er de aling with a tu rbule nt situa tion to be lieve that it w as la wful to tr y to maint ain physi cal c ontro l of the b arric ade, and t o dep loy p epper spray afte r it had b een r aised into the air.

3. Qua lifie d imm unity appl ies o nly t o ind ividu als a nd there fore does not s hield the City from Pluma ’s fe deral claim s. S kehan v. V ill. of Ma maron eck, 465 F .3d 9 6, 10 9 (2d

3Cir. 2006) , ove rrule d on other grou nds b y App el v. Spir idon,

531 F .3d 1 38 (2 d Cir . 200 8). Howev er, m unici palit ies m ay be held liabl e und er § 1983 only if th e pla intif f pla usibl y alleg es th at a city custo m or polic y cau sed h is in jury. See Askin s v. Doe N o. 1, 727 F.3d 248, 254 ( 2d Ci r. 20 13). Pluma does not alleg e tha t his inju ries were cause d by an illeg al po licy or cu stom. Con seque ntly, the City is no t liabl e to Pluma for any o f his fede ral c laims

.
4 . We do n ot co nside r Plu ma’s state -law claim s. T he distr ict c ourt concl uded that most of Pl uma’s stat e-law claim s mus t be dismi ssed in li ght o f its dete rmina tion that the p olice offi cers emplo yed a reas onabl e amo unt o f for ce. Becau se we affi rm th e dis missa l of the f edera l cla ims o n a diffe rent groun d und er a diffe rent stand ard, we va cate the distr ict c ourt’ s jud gment as t o all of P luma’ s sta te la w claim s. O n rem and, the d istri ct co urt s hall deter mine wheth er to exer cise pende nt ju risdi ction over the state -law claim s. S ee Kl ein & Co. Futur es, I nc. v . Boa rd of Trad e of City of Ne w Yor k, 46 4 F.3 d 255 , 262 (2d Cir. 2006) (“It is well settl ed th at wh ere, as he re, t he fe deral clai ms ar e elimi nated in t he ea rly s tages of l itiga tion, cour ts sh ould gener ally decli ne to exer cise pende nt ju risdi ction over remai ning state law claim s.”).

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , we hereb y AFFIR M the judgm ent o f the dist rict court in p art , VAC ATE it in part , and REMAN D the c ase.

FOR T HE CO URT: CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK

4