Marquez v. The Town of Dewitt
5:11-cv-00750
N.D.N.Y.Jan 28, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Johanna Marquez sued Town of DeWitt, several court security officers (CSOs) (Kovalsky, Puma), a DeWitt police officer (White), Chief Conway, unnamed officers, and the Town, alleging racial discrimination, excessive force/assault, false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligence, supervisory/Monell liability, and related state-law claims arising from her ejection from a DeWitt courtroom on June 22, 2010 and two-week detention at the Onondaga County Justice Center (OCJC).
- Allegedly Kovalsky targeted Marquez and her sister for discrimination, ordered Marquez out of the courtroom, and used force; Puma assisted. Kovalsky and Puma provided affidavits leading White to charge Marquez with several misdemeanors; she was remanded to OCJC.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the § 1985 conspiracy claim, claims against White, Conway, the Town, unnamed officers, and claims arising from harms at OCJC, among others.
- At summary judgment the court viewed all evidence and inferences in Marquez’s favor but required particularized allegations for conspiracy and factual support for supervisory/Monell claims and malicious prosecution elements.
- The Court granted summary judgment on most federal and state claims (including § 1985 conspiracy, malicious prosecution, all claims against White, Conway, unnamed officers, Monell claim, many state-law claims, and § 50-j municipal indemnity), but denied summary judgment on (1) § 1983 false imprisonment claim against Kovalsky and Puma and (2) state-law assault claims against Kovalsky, Puma, and the Town (respondeat superior for assault only).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1985 conspiracy to violate civil rights | CSOs and White conspired to discriminate and falsely charge Marquez based on race | No particularized allegations of an agreement or overt acts by others; White acted on independent sworn affidavits | Summary judgment for Defendants as to conspiracy claim (§ 1985) — plaintiff failed to plead particularized facts showing conspiracy |
| Malicious prosecution (state law) | Criminal proceedings were wrongful and motivated by malice | Plaintiff failed to show termination in her favor (element of claim) | Summary judgment for Defendants — malicious prosecution dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| False arrest/ prosecution against Officer White; probable cause | White should have known affidavits were false and lacked probable cause | White had reasonably trustworthy information (sworn affidavits from eyewitness CSOs); thus probable cause | Summary judgment for Defendants — all claims against White dismissed for probable cause/existence of affidavits |
| Supervisory/Monell liability against Conway/Town | Town/Conway negligently trained/supervised and were deliberately indifferent to prior incidents | No facts showing knowledge of prior misconduct, no pattern/custom, CSO duties do not present repeatedly difficult choices requiring more training | Summary judgment for Defendants — Monell/supervisory claims dismissed for lack of factual basis showing deliberate indifference or prior notice |
| Liability for harms at OCJC (post-arrest conditions) | Arresting defendants are responsible for foreseeable detention harms at OCJC | OCJC is run by County; independent intervening actors break causation unless arrests were procured by false statements/pressure | Split: summary judgment granted for Conway/Town and as to unconstitutional conditions claims (not foreseeable); denial as to Kovalsky/Puma only to extent a jury could find they misled White such that incarceration followed; but they are not liable for OCJC conditions absent foreseeability or evidence of custody control |
| State-law respondeat superior (assault) against Town | Town liable for CSOs’ assault under respondeat superior | CSOs were independent contractors/contract employees of Unified Court System, not Town employees | Summary judgment denied on respondeat superior for assault — disputed factual issues about control (contract scope and supervisory testimony) preclude ruling; § 1983 respondeat superior dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (elements of § 1985 conspiracy)
- Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137 (conspiracy pleading requires particularized overt acts)
- Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938 (elements of malicious prosecution claim under New York law)
- Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732 (probable cause standard for arrest in 2d Circuit)
- Rounseville v. Zahl, 13 F.3d 625 (probable cause for malicious prosecution defense)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (theories of supervisory liability in 2d Circuit)
- Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293 (deliberate indifference and the ‘difficult choice’ train/supervise standard)
- Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (independent intervening actor breaks causation absent evidence of police misleading/pressuring)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)