Sharpe v. City of New York
560 F. App'x 78
2d Cir.2014Background
- Sharpe appeals a district court 12(b)(6) dismissal of his amended complaint.
- Claim: interference with intimate association with his father Wellington Sharpe.
- KCDAO policy requires avoiding conflicts and appearance of bias.
- August 11, 2010: Feinstein and Leeper asked Sharpe about his father’s candidacy.
- Sharpe was suspended and fired after disclosure; district court found failure to plead intent.
- Court affirming district court; not plausibly stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plausibility of intimate association interference claim | Sharpe alleges state actors targeted him over his father | No plausible intent or undue burden shown | Not plausible; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (source of intimate association right not definitively determined)
- Sanitation & Recycling Indus., Inc. v. City of New York, 107 F.3d 985 (2d Cir. 1997) (intimate association rights acknowledged; origin unclear)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)