713 F. App'x 1
2d Cir.2017Background
- In 1989 D’Alessandro was arrested after an employee, Jaime Abril, complained he had been confined and had stolen money; he was later convicted of first-degree kidnapping and sentenced to at least 15 years.
- D’Alessandro alleges ADA Brenda Morris and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau (and NYPD officer Anthony Vazquez and the City) engaged in misconduct: prosecutorial investigatory acts, withholding grand jury minutes, manufacturing or hiding evidence, and pursuing charges without a valid indictment.
- In 2010 D’Alessandro obtained coram nobis relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel; his conviction was vacated and the indictment dismissed.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process, false arrest, failure to train/supervise/municipal liability), naming Morris, Morgenthau, Vazquez, the City, and others.
- The district court granted Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals: (1) absolute prosecutorial immunity for Morris and Morgenthau in their personal capacities; (2) Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity prosecutorial claims (to the extent they are state prosecutorial acts); (3) probable cause defeated the false-arrest claim against Vazquez; (4) Monell failure-to-train/municipal claims against the City were insufficiently pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morris and Morgenthau are immune from §1983 suit in personal capacities | Morris/Morgenthau acted beyond prosecutorial advocacy (investigative/administrative misconduct, prosecution without valid indictment) so not absolutely immune | Their alleged acts were part of preparing/prosecuting the case and thus fall within absolute prosecutorial immunity | Affirmed: absolute prosecutorial immunity bars personal-capacity claims against Morris and Morgenthau |
| Whether official-capacity claims against Morris and Morgenthau are barred by the Eleventh Amendment | D’Alessandro contends official-capacity claims should proceed as municipal policy/administration claims | Eleventh Amendment shields state prosecutorial acts; any municipal policy claims are to be treated as against the City | Affirmed: Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suits for prosecutorial acts; municipal-policy aspects must be asserted against the City |
| Whether Vazquez’s arrest of D’Alessandro lacked probable cause (false arrest) | Vazquez should have doubted victim Abril’s veracity and considered exculpatory accounts (deliverymen) before arresting | Arrest rested on Abril’s signed complaint and nothing supplied to police undermined its veracity; officers need not eliminate all plausible innocence theories | Affirmed: probable cause existed; false-arrest claim dismissed |
| Whether the City (and Morgenthau in municipal capacity) is liable under Monell for failure to train/supervise | Single-incident wrongdoing or conclusory allegations suffice to show a pattern/custom or deliberate indifference | Plaintiff must plead facts showing a pattern of similar constitutional violations or the narrow single-incident exception applies only in limited circumstances (Connick) | Affirmed: Monell claim dismissed for failure to plead facts showing pattern or a qualifying single-incident municipal culpability |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors have absolute immunity for advocatory conduct)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (functional test for prosecutorial immunity)
- Shmueli v. City of New York, 424 F.3d 231 (prosecutorial acts preparing for trial entitled to absolute immunity)
- Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161 (advocacy/investigative distinction; functional approach)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (absolute immunity for certain supervisory/training-related prosecutorial functions)
- Warney v. Monroe Cty., 587 F.3d 113 (administrative acts done in advocacy function are absolutely immune)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations not entitled to be presumed true)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability principles under §1983)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (single-incident failure-to-train claim limited; need for pattern normally)
- Singer v. Fulton Cty. Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110 (probable cause standard when arrest based on victim complaint)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (probable cause is a fluid concept; officers not required to eliminate all plausible innocence theories)