Impala v. Funaro, 675 F. App'x 82

Plaintiff ZeeWee Dakar Impala was arrested and later brought §1983 claims alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution against Yale police officers Joseph Funaro, M. Pitoniak, and E. Rapuano.
District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Impala could not show lack of probable cause for arrest (required under Connecticut law for both claims).
District Court relied on two alternative grounds: (1) Impala’s defense counsel had stipulated to the existence of probable cause, and (2) undisputed record facts independently established probable cause for trespass in the second degree and interfering with an officer.
Impala appealed only the district court’s determination that the defense counsel’s stipulation was binding; he did not meaningfully challenge the alternative independent-probable-cause finding.
The Second Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court because the record independently supported probable cause, making the stipulation issue unnecessary to resolve.
The Court also criticized Impala’s appellate brief for failing to comply with Rule 28(a) and warned counsel about future discipline for deficient briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in treating defense counsel’s stipulation as binding on the question of probable cause	Impala argued the stipulation was not enforceable and thus could not preclude his claims	Defendants argued the stipulation bound Impala and established probable cause	Court did not decide the stipulation issue because alternative independent probable-cause finding made it unnecessary; summary judgment affirmed
Whether there was probable cause to arrest Impala for trespass 2nd and interfering with an officer	Impala asserted there was no probable cause for arrest (barely preserved on appeal)	Defendants argued undisputed facts in the record established probable cause for both charges	Court found independent record facts furnished ample probable cause; defendants entitled to summary judgment
Whether summary judgment and denial of reconsideration should be reversed	Impala sought reversal of both district court orders	Defendants maintained both orders were correct given probable cause and lack of preserved challenge	Court affirmed both the summary judgment and denial of reconsideration

Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Betances v. Fischer, 837 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (standard for granting summary judgment)
Russo v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.) (Connecticut law: false arrest barred where probable cause exists)
Roberts v. Babkiewicz, 582 F.3d 418 (2d Cir.) (elements of malicious prosecution under §1983 and Connecticut law)
Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (issues not discussed in opening brief are waived)