Carolyne Rios v. City of New York
687 F. App'x 88
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Carolyne Rios was arrested, indicted by a grand jury, and prosecuted in connection with a gun sale investigation involving undercover officers and a participant nicknamed “JD Paw.”
- Rios had prior connections to a co-defendant (Sentell Smith) and physical similarities to the female participant in the sale, which police relied on in identifying her.
- Rios brought claims under § 1983 and New York law for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against the City, NYPD officers, and others.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; Rios appealed that decision to the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and considered (1) whether probable cause existed or was rebutted, and (2) whether defendants sought a collateral objective or acted with malice; it also considered qualified immunity for officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution: was there probable cause and was the indictment procured by bad faith? | Rios argued the indictment should not create an unrebuttable presumption of probable cause and that police misconduct produced the indictment. | Defendants argued the grand jury indictment created a presumption of probable cause and Rios failed to show fraud, perjury, suppression, or bad faith by police; alternatively officers were entitled to qualified immunity. | Court held Rios failed to rebut the presumption of probable cause and, even assuming probable cause dissipated, officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their probable-cause assessment was objectively reasonable. |
| Abuse of process: did defendants use process to obtain a collateral objective? | Rios argued prosecution was used to achieve an illegitimate collateral objective beyond valid process ends. | Defendants argued no evidence of a collateral objective and alternatively asserted qualified immunity. | Court held Rios offered insufficient evidence of a collateral objective and officers were entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Qualified immunity: were officers plainly incompetent or knowingly violating law? | Rios argued officers’ actions violated clearly established rights and were unreasonable. | Defendants argued their conduct did not violate clearly established law and reasonable officers could disagree about probable cause. | Court held qualified immunity applied because officers’ actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Causation after indictment: did prosecutor’s independent judgment break causal chain? | Rios suggested continued prosecution was linked to police conduct. | Defendants argued the prosecutor exercised independent judgment and any post-indictment causation was broken. | Court noted even if the causal link remained, qualified immunity would shield officers; Rios did not raise a triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment and elements for malicious prosecution)
- Kinzer v. Jackson, 316 F.3d 139 (2d Cir.) (malicious prosecution elements; right from indictment context)
- McClellan v. Smith, 439 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.) (indictment presumption of probable cause; how to rebut)
- Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff’s burden to rebut indictment presumption; qualified immunity discussion)
- Dancy v. McGinley, 843 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S.) (qualified immunity framework)
- Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78 (2d Cir.) (objective reasonableness of probable-cause determinations)
- Cook v. Sheldon, 41 F.3d 73 (2d Cir.) (elements of malicious abuse of process)