Miles v. City of Hartford
445 F. App'x 379
2d Cir.2011Background
- Miles, a DCF employee, assisted in removing four children from a Hartford residence; police officers allegedly found three plastic bags, one with a white substance, which Miles witnessed but officers dispute finding.
- Miles prepared affidavits for DCF alleging officers found the bags; an Internal investigation followed due to discrepancies between Miles’s and officers’ reports.
- Miles was arrested on July 28, 2005, charging her with fabricating evidence and witness tampering related to a visit to a relative’s home.
- Miles obtained accelerated rehabilitation (AR) in January 2006 over the prosecution’s objection, resulting in probation and community service; AR did not necessarily indicate guilt.
- Miles filed suit against the City of Hartford and officers, asserting federal and Connecticut tort theories; the district court granted summary judgment on six claims (plus false light) and trial proceeded on one remaining claim, which the jury resolved for the defendants.
- Miles pursued this appeal challenging the district court’s Connecticut-law application and the grant of summary judgment on several claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AR constitutes favorable termination for malicious prosecution under Connecticut law | Miles contends AR should be favorable termination. | District court followed Roesch; AR not a favorable termination. | AR is not a favorable termination under Roesch. |
| Whether Miles’s false arrest claim requires favorable termination | Miles relies on Weyant to challenge restraint. | Roesch governs; favorable termination required. | Favorable termination required; claim barred. |
| Whether Miles’s abuse of process claim survives given initiation occurred + improper purpose | Defendants used process for improper purpose. | No evidence of improper purpose; second-stage abuse not shown. | No genuine fact issue on improper purpose; claim fails. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Miles’s motion for certification of questions | Roesch control; certification appropriate. | Certification unnecessary; Roesch controls. | Certification denied; Roesch governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roesch v. Otarola, 980 F.2d 850 (2d Cir. 1992) (AR not a favorable termination under Connecticut law for malicious prosecution)
- Posr v. Court Officer Shield No. 207, 180 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999) (speedy-trial dismissal distinguished from adjournment in contemplation of dismissal)
- AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Dep’t of Correction, 6 A.3d 1142 (Conn. 2010) (AR evidence of guilt not probative; public policy concerns)
- Suffield Dev. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P., 802 A.2d 44 (Conn. 2002) (abuse of process requires improper purpose as primary motive)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 876 A.2d 522 (Conn. 2005) (abuse of process requires use of judicial process for improper purpose)
- QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 773 A.2d 906 (Conn. 2001) (abuse of process involves post-initiation improper use)