Bartels v. Schwarz, 643 F. App'x 54

Plaintiff Jeffrey Bartels is a local resident who documents and protests alleged unsafe conditions in the Village of Lloyd Harbor; he sued Village officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law.
Case centers on two incidents: (1) Bartels says a Village dump truck accelerated and veered at him while he photographed a hanging wire, causing him to jump over a guardrail down a 15–20 ft embankment; (2) officers allegedly shouted that he was trespassing, pursued him across a neighbor’s property, and an officer allegedly produced a taser.
Bartels alleged First Amendment retaliation/suppression, substantive due process, equal protection, and state-law assault.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation and granted summary judgment for defendants.
Key evidentiary point: two contemporaneous photographs taken by Bartels contradicted his account of the truck veering toward him and of being down the embankment when one photo was taken.
On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding the record could not support a reasonable jury verdict for Bartels on the disputed facts or on substantive due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the truck intentionally swerved at Bartels (material fact)	Bartels: photos and testimony show truck veered toward him causing him to jump over the guardrail	Defendants: photos contradict Bartels’ account; no evidence of intentional menace	Court: Photos blatantly contradict Bartels’ story; no reasonable jury could credit it — summary judgment affirmed
Whether officers’ shouting/pursuit and alleged display of a taser violated substantive due process	Bartels: officers’ conduct (shouting, pursuit, display of taser) was egregious and shocked the conscience	Defendants: officers’ actions were not shocking; object seen was a phone; no physical contact or seizure	Court: Conduct not conscience-shocking; no seizure; no substantive due process violation — summary judgment affirmed

Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm’n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and review de novo)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (no genuine issue when record could not lead a rational jury to find for non-movant)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (blatant record contradiction permits rejection of a party’s version of events on summary judgment)
Okin v. Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson Police Dep’t, 577 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive due process conscience-shocking standard)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (extreme official conduct required to violate substantive due process)
Anthony v. City of New York, 339 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2003) (limits on substantive due process claims against police)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (definition of seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes)