Emmerling v. Town of Richmond
434 F. App'x 10
2d Cir.2011Background
- Emmerling v. Town of Richmond; summary order from Second Circuit affirming district court ruling.
- Appellant alleged four constitutional claims and moved to amend; district court denied leave to amend and dismissed with prejudice.
- Claims dismissed: substantive due process, stigma-plus procedural due process, selective enforcement equal protection, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
- Court reviews Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo and leave-to-amend denials for abuse of discretion.
- Court denied leave to amend as futile; affirmed district court’s dismissal of all claims.
- Notes indicate Jed S. Rakoff sat by designation and the district court was Western District of New York
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Emmerling's substantive due process claim survives. | Emmerling argues egregious state conduct shocks conscience. | Defendants argue no conscience-shocking conduct. | Claim dismissed on lack of conscience-shocking conduct. |
| Whether Emmerling's stigma-plus claim is plausibly pleaded. | Emmerling asserts defamatory statement plus tangible burden and inadequate process. | No plausible defamatory statement or due-process deficiency alleged. | Stigma-plus claim dismissed. |
| Whether Emmerling's selective enforcement claim is viable in public employment context. | Emmerling alleges differential treatment compared to similarly situated individuals. | No plausible similarly situated comparator or impermissible motive established. | Selective enforcement claim dismissed (court need not resolve Engquist issue). |
| Whether Emmerling's §1985(3) conspiracy claim is plausible. | Allegations show a conspiracy to deprive rights. | Allegations are vague and conclusory. | Conspiracy claim dismissed. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. | Amendments would cure defects. | Amendments are merely stylistic and ineffective. | No abuse of discretion; leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Okin v. Village of Cornwall‑On‑Hudson Police Dept., 577 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (establishes standard for substantive due process shocks-the-conscience claim)
- Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (stigma-plus elements and defamatory requirement)
- Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 357 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004) (selective enforcement framework in EP claims)
- Gyadu v. Hartford Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 1999) (conspiracy pleading must be plausible, not conclusory)
- Acito v. IMCERA Grp., Inc., 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1995) (leave-to-amend denied when futile)
- Hayden v. Cnty. of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) (leave to amend denied when amendments are merely stylistic)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) judgments)
- Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for leave to amend)