782 F. Supp. 2d 4
D. Conn.2011Background
- Aho, chairman of Griswold Republican Town Committee, sues Anthony (First Selectman) and Sylvestre (town meeting moderator) under §1983 for voting/due process rights at a Griswold town meeting.
- The May 21, 2008 Griswold special town meeting concerned accepting state land for a recreational complex amid local controversy.
- Aho alleges a state trooper ejected him after discussing with James Coutu, a political opponent; trooper allegedly did not permit Aho to explain before removal.
- Aho claims the town officials failed to intervene to prevent the ejection or to investigate the trooper’s conduct; the vote on the proposal occurred after Aho’s removal.
- Aho later brought suit against the troopers (Chitteck and Konow), Sylvestre, and Anthony; the court later grants the defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the §1983 claims against Anthony and Sylvestre.
- The ruling analyzes personal involvement, statutory duty under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-6, and qualified immunity, ultimately dismissing the claims against Anthony and Sylvestre.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anthony and Sylvestre had personal involvement to support §1983 liability | Aho asserts conspiratorial involvement by Anthony and Sylvestre in ejecting him | Anthony and Sylvestre did not take affirmative action or observe the ejection; no meeting of the minds shown | Dismissed for lack of personal involvement |
| Whether §7-6/7-7 create an affirmative duty to prevent removal | Statutes impose a duty to protect voters at municipal meetings | No affirmative duty to intervene; mere nonintervention insufficient | Statutory claim dismissed |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Anthony and Sylvestre | Rights to vote and due process were violated | Rights were not clearly established; actions were objectively reasonable | Qualified immunity applies; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading, not probability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausibility, not mere possibility of misconduct)
- Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) (state/local voting rights; extraordinary circumstances needed for constitutional claim)
- Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1988) (affirmative duty to act necessary for liability under §1983/First Amendment)
- Moore v. Vega, 371 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (clear establishment and objective reasonableness in qualified immunity)
- Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 1995) (even with clearly established rights, officer may be immunized if objectively reasonable)
- Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (principles for conspiracy and due process claims in suppression of rights)