Bristol v. Nassau County
685 F. App'x 26
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Marcel Bristol, proceeding pro se, sued Nassau County, its Police Department, several police officers, and assistant district attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and related claims.
- The district court dismissed the complaint; Bristol appealed, challenging (1) the district court’s refusal to judicially notice documents he attached to his opposition, (2) dismissal of his false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims on issue-preclusion grounds, and (3) the court’s failure to recognize a fabrication-of-evidence claim distinct from malicious prosecution.
- The district court did judicially notice publicly available state-court decisions in the related criminal proceedings but declined to consider other extrinsic documents Bristol submitted that were not part of the complaint or otherwise integral.
- In the state criminal proceedings, the trial court found probable cause to arrest Bristol; the Appellate Division affirmed the probable-cause finding and concluded the evidence was legally sufficient to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while ordering a new trial for procedural reasons (waiver of counsel).
- Bristol argued fabrication of evidence could support a separate claim, but his complaint did not identify post-arrest fabricated facts; he also remained subject to the underlying indictment, so he could not show a favorable termination necessary for malicious-prosecution damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of documents attached to opposition | Bristol argued district court should consider the documents he attached to his opposition memorandum. | Defendants argued those documents were extrinsic, not part of the complaint, and not subject to judicial notice. | Court: Declined to judicially notice Bristol’s extrinsic attachments because they were not attached to or integral to the complaint nor indisputably authentic; district court properly considered only publicly available state decisions. |
| Preclusive effect on false arrest | Bristol argued his false-arrest claim should proceed despite state-court findings. | Defendants argued the Appellate Division’s probable-cause determination precludes the federal false-arrest claim under collateral estoppel. | Court: Affirmed dismissal—state-court probable-cause finding met New York collateral-estoppel requirements and bars the false-arrest claim. |
| Preclusive effect on malicious prosecution | Bristol contended malicious prosecution claim should survive; he pointed to alleged fabrication or flaws in the case. | Defendants argued probable cause and lack of favorable termination preclude malicious-prosecution damages. | Court: Affirmed dismissal—Appellate Division’s findings and the absence of a final termination in Bristol’s favor prevent a malicious-prosecution damages claim. |
| Fabrication-of-evidence as a distinct claim | Bristol argued fabrication of evidence may be independent of malicious prosecution and survive. | Defendants argued no post-arrest fabrication was alleged and indictment and proceedings remained unresolved, so no independent claim supported damages. | Court: Rejected Bristol’s undeveloped fabrication argument—complaint lacked specific post-arrest fabrication allegations and malicious-prosecution damages are unavailable while underlying prosecution remains pending. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir.) (judicial notice reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Concord Assocs., L.P. v. Entm’t Props. Tr., 817 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (extrinsic materials not incorporated into complaint need not be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Apotex, Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., 823 F.3d 51 (2d Cir.) (public records subject to judicial notice without converting to summary judgment)
- Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (federal courts give state judgments preclusive effect under state law)
- Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for dismissal)
- Stansbury v. Wertman, 721 F.3d 84 (2d Cir.) (probable cause is absolute defense to false arrest and malicious prosecution)
- Phifer v. City of New York, 289 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.) (representation by counsel indicates full and fair opportunity to litigate)
- Curry v. City of Syracuse, 316 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (incentive to litigate where findings affect incarceration)
- Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir.) (fabrication-of-evidence can support independent fair-trial claim)
- Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121 (2d Cir.) (malicious-prosecution damages require favorable termination; remand for new trial is not sufficient)