Harasz v. Katz
239 F. Supp. 3d 461
D. Conn.2017Background
- Plaintiffs George Harasz and Douglas Wirth are adoptive fathers whose nine adopted children were investigated by Connecticut DCF and Glastonbury police after allegations of sexual abuse; both men were later exonerated (Wirth acquitted; charges against Harasz dismissed).
- DCF Commissioner Joette Katz, DCF social worker Elizabeth Ferreira, and Glastonbury officers James Kennedy and William Trantalis are named defendants; the Town of Glastonbury is sued on an indemnification theory.
- Plaintiffs’ operative Amended Complaint asserts § 1983 claims (malicious prosecution, failure to train/supervise, fabrication of evidence) and related state-law claims, and was removed to federal court.
- Plaintiffs allege that DCF and police procured prosecutions by fabricating or misrepresenting evidence from forensic interviews (notably the August 11, 2011 interview of Doe #9) and that Katz improperly influenced prosecutors and met privately with a child witness.
- The court applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards: accept well-pleaded facts, disregard conclusory/polemic assertions, and require plausible factual allegations of intent (malice) where state of mind is an element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution claim vs. Commissioner Katz (federal/state) | Katz pressured prosecutors, undermined plea, met privately with child witness, and thus procured prosecution with malice | Katz as agency head cannot be liable merely for inter-branch communications; plaintiffs fail to plead facts plausibly showing malice or that Katz initiated/procured prosecutions | Dismissed Katz on malicious prosecution (Counts Three & Six) — plaintiffs failed to plead plausible malice and procurement by Katz |
| Failure-to-train/supervise claim vs. Katz (§1983) | Katz failed to train DCF on RAD and forensic interviews and failed to supervise Ferreira, causing constitutional harm | Monell-type theory inapplicable to individual-capacity claim; plaintiffs lack facts showing Katz’s personal involvement or a clearly established constitutional right to specific trainings | Dismissed Count One (failure-to-train/supervise) as implausibly pleaded against Katz in her individual capacity |
| Fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution vs. Officer Kennedy | Kennedy observed Doe #9 interview but wrote an affidavit that materially misrepresented the interview and forwarded it to prosecutors, causing arrest/prosecution | Kennedy denies fabrication; argues probable cause shields or qualified immunity (later) | Court refused to dismiss; converted claims against Kennedy to partial summary judgment (requires comparison of recorded interview and affidavit) |
| Claims vs. Officer Trantalis and DCF worker Ferreira for fabrication/malicious prosecution | Trantalis signed jurat and participated in reports; Ferreira allegedly reported disclosures and observed interviews, and exhibited bias | Trantalis’s acts were ministerial and do not allege fabrication; Ferreira’s alleged conduct mostly consists of hostility and reporting—fabrication claims limited to her involvement with the Doe #9 interview and later report | Claims against Trantalis dismissed in full; claims against Ferreira not dismissed but converted to partial summary judgment (to examine tape/affidavit) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim; legal conclusions not accepted)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleadings)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (police fabrication of evidence that influences prosecution violates right to fair trial)
- Garnett v. Undercover Officer COO39, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016) (fabrication-of-evidence can state an independent due process claim; elements for fair-trial fabrication claim articulated)
- Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1985) (intent and state of mind must be plausibly pleaded; conclusory assertions insufficient)
- Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) (Rule 8 requires plausible pleading of actual malice where state of mind is an element)
- McHale v. W.B.S. Corp., 187 Conn. 444 (Conn. 1982) (elements of malicious prosecution under Connecticut law)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (to state §1983 malicious-prosecution claim, plaintiff must plead Fourth Amendment violation and state-law malicious-prosecution elements)