988 F. Supp. 2d 231
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Coggins sues Nassau County, NCPD, Vara, Buonora, Pickering, Delargy, and John Does under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and NY tort law.
- Allegations arose from the Oct. 9, 2004 stop, pursuit, detainment, and arrest of Coggins, with claims of racial targeting and falsified police records.
- Charges for weapon possession and resisting arrest were filed in 2005; the DA later dismissed them in Aug. 2005; Buonora pled guilty to perjury.
- Coggins alleges a broader conspiracy to maliciously prosecute, including fabrication/omission of evidence and false grand jury testimony.
- Coggins seeks to amend via Third Amended Complaint after Rehberg v. Paulk; Buonora seeks dismissal or summary judgment; County Defendants oppose amendment as futile.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motions, finding absolute immunity for grand-jury-related perjury claims but allowing other §1983 claims to proceed; §1986 and some state claims deemed time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May TAC be amended post-Rehberg? | Coggins argues amendment necessary to reflect Rehberg's scope. | County contends amendment would be futile. | Amendment granted except for grand-jury perjury predicates. |
| Does Rehberg grant absolute immunity to off-duty conduct cited in §1983 claims? | Plaintiff argues non-grand-jury conduct remains actionable. | Buonora/Vara seek absolute immunity for grand-jury perjury and related conspiracy. | Absolute immunity applies to grand-jury perjury/conspiracy; other §1983 claims survive. |
| Are §1983 conspiracy claims against officers viable under intracorporate doctrine? | TAC alleges broader conspiracy beyond grand jury testimony. | Defendants argue intracorporate doctrine bars §1985(3) claims absent outside scope/personal stake. | §1985(3) conspiracy survives due to alleged outside-scope or personal stake allegations. |
| Are state-law claims timely under §50-i and CPLR 213-b, and is notice of claim required? | Claims should proceed; time issues defer to discovery. | Statutes of limitations/notice requirements bar claims; §50-i applies (one year 90 days) and 213-b may apply. | §50-i and 213-b defenses are premature; some state claims survive pending discovery and scope analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (U.S. 2012) (grand-jury witness absolute immunity under §1983; limits perjury immunity)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1983) (absolute immunity for testimony during trial under §1983)
- Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (interplay of failure to intervene and liability for officers)
- Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of §1985 conspiracy against state actors; intracorporate doctrine context)
- Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2008) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine exceptions; personal stake considerations)