Morales v. City of New York
752 F.3d 234
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2007 Pablo Morales was arrested by DEA agents and NYPD officers on the New York Drug Enforcement Task Force and detained until state charges were dropped ~3 years later.
- Morales alleged DEA Special Agent Michael Arnett gave false grand jury testimony and that lab results were fabricated to show plants from his backyard were marijuana. He also alleged a history as a NYDETF confidential informant.
- Morales sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988, and state tort law, claiming malicious prosecution, abuse of process, denial of fair trial, and race-based constitutional violations; he sued the City/NYPD under Monell theory.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted dismissal and Morales appealed.
- The Second Circuit assumed Morales’s factual allegations were true for pleading purposes and addressed: (1) whether Arnett’s conduct gives rise to Bivens liability; (2) whether grand jury testimony and alleged fabricated lab results support fair-trial, malicious-prosecution, and abuse-of-process claims; and (3) whether discriminatory-motive and Monell claims were adequately pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arnett can be sued under § 1983 or Bivens for grand jury testimony | Arnett acted with NYPD/NYDETF and gave false testimony that caused the indictment | Arnett acted as a federal agent; grand jury witnesses are absolutely immune; no plausible conspiracy alleged | Arnett is entitled to absolute immunity for grand jury testimony; Bivens is the proper framework for federal-actor claims and immunity applies |
| Whether false grand jury testimony or fabricated lab results state a fair-trial claim | Testimony and lab fabrication deprived Morales of a fair trial | Grand jury testimony is absolutely immune; factual allegations about lab results are contradicted by other pleadings | Fair-trial claim based on Arnett’s grand jury testimony and the lab allegation fails; Rehberg bars liability for grand jury testimony |
| Whether abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims were properly pled | Defendants prosecuted Morales for improper/ulterior purposes and with malice | Pleadings lack nonconclusory allegations of ulterior motive or actual malice; Bivens does not recognize abuse-of-process claim against federal actors | Claims dismissed for failure to plead ulterior purpose/actual malice; Court declines to recognize a Bivens abuse-of-process cause of action |
| Whether § 1981/§ 1985 and Monell claims survive | Defendants acted due to discriminatory animus; City is liable for customs/policy | Pleadings contain only conclusory allegations of discrimination; underlying constitutional claims fail, so municipal liability fails | § 1981/§ 1985 claims dismissed for failure to allege discriminatory intent; Monell claim dismissed because underlying claims against individuals were dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing Bivens cause of action against federal officers)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability for constitutional violations caused by policy or custom)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (absolute immunity for grand jury testimony)
- Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (treatment of federal-state actor distinctions in Bivens context)
- Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63 (abuse of process elements under § 1983)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (malicious prosecution requires pleading of actual malice)
- Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Leeds, 436 F.3d 147 (conclusory cooperation allegations insufficient for conspiracy)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)