Takacs v. The City of New York et al
| Robert Takacs |
| The City of New York, Louis Scala, Michael Servino, James Ryan, Daniel Santiago and John Doe # 1-5 |
| 1:2009cv00481 |
| January 16, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Leonard B. Sand |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff Robert Takacs brings this action pursuant to sections 1983 and 1985 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and related offenses arising out of his arrest on drug possession charges. It is understandable that Mr. Taka cs feels aggrieved in light of his five and a half month detention before the case was dismissed. However, the harm he suffered is not of the sort section 1983 is designed to remedy. Defendants the City of New York and police officers Louis Scala, Michael Servino, James Ryan, and Daniel Santiago (together the "Officers") move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons listed in this Memorandum and Order, the motion is granted and the Complaint is dismissed. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 1/24/11) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
