Maria Moulthrop v. Slavin
700 F. App'x 75
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Moulthrop, principal at Hopeville Elementary, was placed on leave after the district uncovered testing irregularities; an internal probe broadened to alleged misuse of PTO funds.
- District employees reported the PTO was defunct and controlled by Moulthrop; bank records showed payments from the PTO account for items including car repairs, a TV, and a leaf blower, some kept at Moulthrop’s home.
- Waterbury police relied on teacher statements and TD Bank forensic accounting to obtain an arrest warrant for larceny; a magistrate signed the warrant and Moulthrop was arrested and charged.
- At trial a jury acquitted Moulthrop of criminal charges. She then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and for malicious prosecution, alleging officers knowingly or recklessly misrepresented facts and that district employees initiated the prosecution.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); Moulthrop appealed only the false arrest (Count Two) and malicious prosecution (Count Three) dismissals and denial of leave to amend.
- The Second Circuit evaluated whether the arrest affidavit (with alleged omissions/falsehoods removed or corrected) still established probable cause and whether amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest under § 1983 — whether affidavit contained material falsehoods/omissions that vitiated probable cause | Moulthrop: officers knowingly/recklessly misrepresented or omitted material interview details and transaction specifics; corrected affidavit would not support probable cause | Defendants: affidavit contained undisputed bank records and witness statements showing suspicious personal charges from PTO account, establishing probable cause | Court: Probable cause remained after correcting alleged errors; dismissal affirmed |
| Malicious prosecution — whether probable cause was lacking such that malicious prosecution claim survives | Moulthrop: initiation of prosecution was driven by false/omitted evidence from district and police, so prosecution was malicious | Defendants: existence of probable cause defeats malicious prosecution claim | Court: Probable cause is a complete defense; malicious prosecution claim dismissed |
| Denial of leave to amend — whether district court abused discretion by refusing leave | Moulthrop: additional facts from criminal proceeding could cure pleading defects | Defendants: plaintiff already had the underlying evidence; pleadings could not overcome probable cause so amendment would be futile | Court: Denial not an abuse; amendment would be futile |
| Materiality standard for falsehoods/omissions in warrant affidavits — whether alleged misstatements were necessary to finding of probable cause | Moulthrop: omissions/misstatements were necessary to obtain the warrant | Defendants: challenged facts were non-material; independent, unchallenged evidence sufficed | Court: Plaintiff must show misstatements/omissions were necessary; here they were not — probable cause still existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Trs. of the Upstate N.Y. Eng’rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt., 843 F.3d 561 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) (probable cause is complete defense to false arrest)
- Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir. 2002) (test for materiality: correct affidavit by excising falsehoods and adding omissions)
- Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 747 (2d Cir. 2004) (plaintiff alleging knowing/reckless misrepresentation must show misstatements/omissions were necessary to probable cause)
- Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 1995) (consider elements of charged offense when assessing objective reasonableness of probable cause)
- United States v. Valentine, 539 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause standard)
- Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (probable cause may exist despite competing versions of events)
- Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2014) (probable cause forecloses constitutional malicious prosecution claim)