Shapiro v. Goldman, 1:14-cv-10119

Background

In 2012 Mark Shapiro, a radiologist, was indicted with others in a large no-fault automobile insurance fraud investigation; charges against him were dismissed by nolle prosequi on December 30, 2013.
Shapiro alleges a broad conspiracy: the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) and major insurers assisted and effectively controlled DOJ/FBI investigations to target providers and save insurers money; private entities allegedly supplied analyses, billing data, and a loss chart used in the prosecution.
The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) names government actors (AUSAs, FBI officials, U.S. Attorney) and multiple private defendants (NICB, insurers, Rivkin Radler, individual analysts), asserting Bivens claims, FTCA tort claims, and a state-law tortious-interference claim.
Key factual allegations include: NICB analyses ("Clearview Analysis"), an email from an NICB agent requesting billing data for Shapiro, wiretap affidavits referencing NICB material, cooperating-witness testimony (Sukhman) allegedly induced by prosecutors, and a government loss chart used in the grand-jury presentation.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court reviewed extensive briefing and oral argument and dismissed all federal claims against both private and government defendants and declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state claims; leave to amend was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bivens can be asserted against private corporate/entity defendants (NICB, insurers, law firm).	Shapiro argues private entities acted as federal actors and thus are subject to Bivens liability for constitutional deprivations.	Defendants invoke Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko and other authority: Bivens does not extend to corporations/private entities.	Dismissed: Bivens claims against private entities are barred—Bivens targets individual federal officers, not private/corporate defendants.
Whether private defendants acted under color of federal law (joint action, public function, conspiracy).	NICB/insurers allegedly entered MOUs with DOJ/FBI, provided data and direction, and participated jointly in investigations and indictments.	Defendants: providing leads, data, or cooperating with law enforcement does not convert them into federal actors; mere information-supply or cooperation is insufficient.	Dismissed: allegations do not plausibly show compulsion, public-function delegation, or joint action; conspiracy/joint-action theory inadequately pleaded.
Personal involvement and supervisory liability of government officials (AUSAs, U.S. Attorney, FBI ADIC).	Shapiro alleges high-level policy capture by insurers, public statements, and supervisory responsibility (e.g., Bharara, Fedarcyk) that led to unconstitutional prosecution.	Defendants: Bivens requires personal conduct; supervisory/agency allegations are conclusory; prosecutorial functions enjoy absolute immunity; investigative actions get qualified immunity.	Dismissed: failure to plead personal involvement; immunity (absolute/qualified) bars claims against prosecutors for core prosecutorial acts.
Malicious prosecution/false arrest under Bivens and FTCA, and fabrication/inducement of false testimony claims.	Shapiro claims indictment/prosecution were procured by fraud, fabricated evidence, inducement of false testimony, inflated loss figures, and withholding exculpatory evidence; FTCA claims assert investigative-law-enforcement-officer exception.	Defendants: arrest was on warrant (negates false-arrest claim); indictment creates presumptive probable cause that plaintiff fails to rebut; prosecutors are absolutely immune for advocative acts; FTCA intentional-tort exceptions and immunity rules limit recovery.	Dismissed: arrest pursuant to warrant bars false-arrest claim; indictment presumes probable cause and plaintiff fails to plausibly allege fraud/perjury/suppression sufficient to overcome it; prosecutorial absolute immunity and qualified immunity apply; FTCA claims fail or are inapplicable.
"Stigma-plus" and other constitutional torts; leave to amend.	Shapiro contends press release/remarks plus prosecution produced reputational harm and other deprivations; seeks leave to amend to add state-law claims.	Defendants: press statements accurately summarized indictment; stigma-plus requires false statement plus state-imposed deprivation; plaintiff already had multiple chances to amend and pleadings remain deficient.	Dismissed: press statements not pleaded as false as to Shapiro; no state-imposed ‘‘plus’’ alleged; leave to re-plead denied given repeated opportunities and substantive deficiencies.

Key Cases Cited

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages action against individual federal officers for constitutional violations)
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens does not extend to private corporations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; personal involvement and conclusory allegations insufficient)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors for advocative functions)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (distinguishing prosecutorial advocative vs. investigative functions; immunity analysis)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (Bivens does not authorize suit against federal agencies)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure-to-train requires pattern showing; supervisory liability limits)
Sadallah v. City of Utica, 383 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004) (stigma-plus requirements; reputational harm alone insufficient)
Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (fabrication-of-evidence framework)
Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (conspiracy claims under § 1983 require factual showing of agreement)