568 F. App'x 32
2d Cir.2014Background
- McGee sued Dunn, Galindo, several Town of Carmel police officers, and Putnam County prosecutors Wright and Noah for a conspiracy to arrest and prosecute McGee based on false, misleading evidence.
- District Court dismissed most claims against all defendants except Dunn; denied McGee’s motions for reargument and to amend.
- McGee alleged Dunn directed Galindo’s complaint and met with ADA Noah to align facts with Galindo’s statements and Dunn’s disputes with McGee.
- Noah allegedly met with Dunn repeatedly and obtained evidence while not interviewing Galindo, forming the conspiracy backdrop.
- Court considered whether the police officers’ reliance on Galindo’s informant statements was protected by qualified immunity, and whether Wright and Noah were protected by absolute immunity.
- We vacate the dismissal of claims against Dunn and certain police officers, affirm dismissal of others, and remand for further proceedings; leave to amend granted in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dunn conspired with state actors to arrest and prosecute | McGee claims Dunn directed Galindo and collaborated with Noah | Dunn argued no conspiracy with state actors was adequately pled | Conspiracy adequately pleaded; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether Galindo conspired with state actors | McGee alleges Galindo acted as part of a state actor conspiracy | Galindo could not plausibly conspire with state actors | Dismissal of claims against Galindo affirmed |
| Whether police officers are protected by qualified immunity | Galindo’s unreliable testimony undermines probable cause | Officers had arguable probable cause based on victim-witness statements | Qualified immunity not warranted at this stage; vacate dismissal of police-officer claims and remand |
| Whether Wright and Noah have absolute immunity | Wright and Noah acted investigatively, not in advocacy | They were functioning in advocacy roles | Noah and Wright protected by absolute immunity; claims dismissed |
| Whether malicious prosecution claim terminated in McGee's favor | Prosecution termination should be favorable | Termination not favorable under NY law | Malicious prosecution claim dismissed; termination not favorable under applicable law |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (conspiracy pleading requirements; sine qua non of §1983 action)
- Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1995) (sine qua non of §1983; liability from witness statements)
- Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2000) (arguable probable cause; informant credibility considerations)
- Lee v. Sandberg, 136 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 1997) (informant credibility and reliance in probable cause)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (standard for qualified immunity in false arrest)
- Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 463 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2006) (qualified immunity defense at Rule 12(b)(6) stage is difficult)
- Breen v. Garrison, 169 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissal of malicious prosecution where not a merits termination)
- Machin v. DeCarlo, 141 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1998) (municipal liability and policy.)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (absent prejudice and delays; leave to amend factors)
- Jin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2002) (late amendments and discovery timing considerations)