Torres v. Graeff
700 F. App'x 80
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (estate administrators) sued seven Utica police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a mentally ill individual, Paul Bumbolo, later committed a triple homicide; plaintiffs alleged officers’ response tacitly encouraged the violence.
- Complaint alleges officers responded to a single reported domestic disturbance involving Bumbolo and took him into custody under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 for evaluation.
- Officers used force to handcuff Bumbolo, transported him to a hospital, assisted hospital staff in further restraining him, and instructed staff to call police before releasing him.
- Plaintiffs claimed officers’ conduct implicitly assured Bumbolo he could act with impunity (a state-created danger theory), because they did not remain physically present during the hospital evaluation.
- District court denied officers’ qualified-immunity motion; the officers appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and accepted complaint allegations as true.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ response created a state-created danger by assuring Bumbolo impunity | Officers’ actions and failure to remain at the scene implicitly signaled to Bumbolo he could act without consequences | Officers affirmatively intervened: arrested and transported Bumbolo, restrained him, instructed hospital to contact police before release—no assurances of impunity | Reversed: complaint fails to allege sustained inaction or assurances; no state-created danger claim stated |
| Whether single-intervention facts can establish implicit assurances via sustained inaction | Plaintiffs argue implicit assurance can be shown despite a single incident if conduct conveyed permissiveness | Defendants argue single, affirmative interdiction is inconsistent with an implicit assurance of impunity | Held: Only repeated, sustained inaction can show implicit assurance (Okin); single prompt intervention does not suffice |
| Whether qualified immunity denial was proper at pleading stage | Plaintiffs contend pleadings adequately allege constitutional violation, so immunity inapplicable | Officers assert lack of constitutional violation supports judgment for them and qualified immunity | Held: Because no constitutional violation pled, officers entitled to judgment; qualified-immunity denial reversed |
| Whether municipal (Monell) and supplemental state-law claims survive if federal claim dismissed | Plaintiffs contend Monell and state claims remain | Defendants argue Monell claim depends on showing constitutional violation; without it, federal jurisdiction should be declined | Held: Court noted Monell likely not viable absent constitutional violation and district court should consider dismissing federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction absent extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard of review on motion to dismiss; accept complaint allegations as true)
- Sadallah v. City of Utica, 383 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004) (discusses state-created danger limitations)
- Pena v. DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2005) (failure to protect does not violate Due Process absent affirmative enhancement of risk)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (bare failure to protect by state actors not a due process violation)
- Okin v. Vill. of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Dep’t, 577 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (implicit assurances require repeated, sustained inaction to show officers affirmatively enhanced risk)
- Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (Monell claim requires underlying constitutional violation)
- Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards for declining supplemental jurisdiction)