Golodner v. City of New London
443 F. App'x 622
2d Cir.2011Background
- Golodner sues the City of New London and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- District Court granted summary judgment for the individual defendants and the City.
- Dispute centered on probable cause for a May 25, 2006 arrest warrant and alleged omissions in the warrant application.
- Golodner argued First Amendment retaliation tied to redress of grievances; district court treated it as failure to investigate the police department.
- Plaintiff claimed an equal protection “class of one” violation stemming from differential treatment by Officer Nott compared to a neighbor.
- Court affirmed district court, holding no genuine issues of material fact and no § 1983 liability against City or individuals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment; probable cause omissions in warrant | Garnett and Carter omitted exculpatory details. | Omission does not negate probable cause. | No genuine issue; probable cause upheld. |
| First Amendment retaliation against arrest | Arrests retaliatory for grievance petition. | Probable cause defeats retaliation; alternative basis. | Affirmed on alternate ground: probable cause defeats retaliation. |
| Equal protection class-of-one claim | Differential treatment warrants rational basis review. | Distinct circumstances justify difference. | No genuine issue; rational basis supported by corroborating witness. |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 | City liable if constitutional violations occurred. | No underlying constitutional violations by anyone. | District Court proper; City not liable; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (officer’s failure to investigate innocence does not vitiate probable cause)
- Mozzochi v. Borden, 959 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir. 1992) (probable cause defeats retaliation claims)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (waiver of arguments raised on appeal)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. (2008)) (equal protection class-of-one framework)
- Analytical Diagnostic Labs, Inc. v. Kusel, 626 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (court’s reliance on Kusel acknowledged; not addressing facts)
- Barrett v. Orange County Human Rights Comm., 194 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 1999) (municipal liability without individual liability may exist)
- Horvath v. Westport Library Ass’n, 362 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard and favorable view of nonmovant evidence)
- Beal v. Stern, 184 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999) (affirming on any ground supported by the record)