United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jose Eric Ramos, is currently confined at MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut
(“MacDougall-Walker”). Mr. Ramos initially filed
this action in the Connecticut Superior Court for the
Judicial District of New London, asserting claims of
excessive force, lack of speedy arraignment, and violations
of the right to counsel and the right to remain silent
against Defendants, Sergeant Corey Poore, Detectives James
Curtis and H. Reams, Supervisor John Doe on Shift 9-16-12,
and the Norwich Police Department.
April 9, 2015, Defendants removed the action from state court
to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. See
Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2016, Defendants
moved for summary judgment. The Court denied the motion
without prejudice because counsel had neglected to file and
serve a Notice to Pro Se Litigant on Mr. Ramos as required by
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 56(b). See Order, ECF No. 11.
Defendants subsequently moved to renew their motion for
summary judgment, see Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 13, and
Mr. Ramos filed a memorandum and a Local Rule 56(a)(2)
Statement in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,
see Mem. Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 18 and
Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, ECF No. 19. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Standard of Review
motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving
party to establish that there are no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute and that it is “entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.
A fact is “material” if it “might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law, ” and
it is “genuine” if “a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party” based on it.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
motion for summary judgment is supported by documentary
evidence and sworn affidavits and “demonstrates the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact, ” the
nonmoving party must do more than vaguely assert the
existence of some unspecified disputed material facts or
“rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated
speculation.” Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs.,
Inc., 781 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
Thus, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment
“must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating
the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.”
reviewing the record, the Court must “construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and to draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.”
Gary Friedrich Enters., L.L.C. v. Marvel Characters,
Inc., 716 F.3d 302, 312 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted). If there is any evidence in the record from which a
reasonable factual inference could be drawn in favor of the
opposing party for the issue on which summary judgment is
sought, however, summary judgment is improper. See
Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line
Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004).
one party is proceeding pro se, the Court reads the
pro se party's papers liberally and interprets
them “to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.” Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51,
62 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Despite this liberal interpretation, however,
“[u]nsupported allegations do not create a material
issue of fact” and cannot overcome a properly supported
motion for summary judgment. See Weinstock v. Columbia
Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 540 U.S. 811 (2003).
Poore, James Curtis and H. Reams were Detectives with the
Norwich Police Department as of September 25, 2012. Based on
an investigation by the Norwich Police Department and the
State of Connecticut Office of the Chief State's
Attorney's Southeastern Connecticut Cold Case Unit into
the shooting of Tynell Hardwick in October 2008 in Norwich,
Connecticut, Detective Poore obtained a warrant for the
arrest of Mr. Jose Ramos for the murder of Mr. Hardwick.
Detective Poore subsequently obtained information that Mr.
Ramos was living in New York.
September 25, 2012, New York Police officers and detectives
arrested Mr. Ramos at 69-42 Decoste Avenue, Queens, New York
pursuant to the warrant for his arrest. Following Mr.
Ramos's custodial arrest arrest, New York Police officers
transferred custody of Mr. Ramos to Detective Poore, who
transported Mr. Ramos to the 90th Precinct of the
New York Police Department, located in Brooklyn, New York.
police precinct, Mr. Ramos signed a Norwich Police Department
Advisement of Rights form. Later that day, a New York
Assistant District Attorney presented Mr. Ramos to a judge in
the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of Kings
in a waiver of extradition proceeding. During that
proceeding, Mr. Ramos acknowledged that he was a fugitive
from the State of Connecticut who had been charged in the
County of New London with the crime of murder, waived his
right to the issuance and service of a warrant of
extradition, and consented to his return to the State of
evening, Detectives Poore, Curtis and Reams transported Mr.
Ramos from New York to the Norwich Police Department. At
approximately 12:02 a.m. on September 26, 2012, Mr. Ramos
signed a State of Connecticut Notice of Rights - Bail. Mr.
Ramos spent the night in a holding cell at the Norwich Police
approximately 8:00 a.m. on September 26, 2012, Detective
Poore brought Mr. Ramos into an interview room at the Norwich
Police Department and Mr. Ramos signed another Advisement of
Rights and a Waiver of Rights. Detective Poore interviewed
Mr. Ramos for approximately three hours. During this time,
Mr. Ramos confessed to the murder of Mr. Hardwick in October
2008, wrote a letter of apology to Mr. Hardwick's mother,
wrote and signed a confession statement, and signed a waiver
consenting to a DNA swab.
approximately, 11:00 a.m., Detective Poore transported Mr.
Ramos to the Norwich Superior Court. Upon arrival at the
courthouse, Detective Poore turned Mr. Ramos over to judicial
marshals. A judge arraigned Mr. Ramos on the charge of murder
that afternoon. On January 5, 2016, the judge denied Mr.
Ramos's motion to suppress his statements and admissions
to the murder of Mr. Hardwick.
April 29, 2016, a jury in the Connecticut Superior Court for
the Judicial District of New London found Mr. Ramos guilty of
murder. The judge sentenced Mr. Ramos to sixty
years of ...