Not sure what the Court means here
Case: LEMMO v. CITY OF NEW YORK (E.D.N.Y. 9-30-2011)
As detailed below, the Court finds itself constrained by established summary judgment standards to allow certain of plaintiff’s excessive force claims to proceed to trial. But the Court nevertheless has misgivings. Handing [Plaintiff] even a partial summary judgment victory —
and his second in as many lawsuits — may serve to validate [Plaintiff]’s apparent sense that, having learned the section 1983 ropes, he can continue, with impunity, to generate lawsuits by engaging in misconduct intended to provoke the police to overreact with arguably actionable excessive force. At the same time one cannot entirely discount [Plaintiff]’s side of the matter; for all his nagging recidivism (the arrest leading to this lawsuit is his 40th), there may well be a degree of police targeting at play, and ordering a second set of officers to trial on [Plaintiff]’s excessive force claims can hardly serve to douse any lurking retaliatory animus. The Court’s role on summary judgment, of course, is not to make credibility findings or to engage in speculation but merely to decide, as it has, that the parties’ fates with respect to certain claims lie with the jury. But as gatekeeper of its docket the Court cannot abdicate its duty to warn litigants that it is not blind to the apparent reality beneath the lawsuits and that enough is enough.