Traylor v. Hammond
94 F. Supp. 3d 203
D. Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sylvester Traylor sues multiple defendants—Hammond, Smith, Connecticut College, City of New London, Keating, Newman, Nakamara—for defamation, Monell liability, discriminatory practice under the Penn Act, retaliation, negligence, IIED, due process/equal protection, spoliation, and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- April 14, 2011, incident at Connecticut College’s Cummings Art Building involved Traylor observing a nude model (Newman) and consulting artist Nakamara for courtroom sketches; security personnel and Keating interacted with him and he was eventually cited for trespass.
- Traylor had prior CHRO complaints against the City of New London before the incident.
- The Amended Complaint expands factual allegations but the court must apply Twombly/Iqbal standards and limits evidence to pleadings, exhibits, incorporated documents, and judicially noticed matters.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions; most federal claims are dismissed; Connecticut constitutional claims against Conn. College are dismissed; a portion of Count Seven is remanded for state-court handling; and the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell liability against City of New London | City policy/custom caused Keating's conduct | No proven policy or custom existed causally linking to the incident | Monell claim dismissed |
| First Amendment retaliation (Count Four) as to Keating | Keating retaliated for CHRO filings | No chill of protected activity shown | Count Four dismissed |
| Due Process, Equal Protection, and Conspiracy (Count Seven) as to Conn. College, City of New London, Keating | Constitutional violations and conspiracy alleged against multiple defendants | Insufficient facts showing state action, discrimination, or agreement | Count Seven dismissed as to Conn. College; others dismissed; conspiracy claim and some equal protection claims rejected |
| Connecticut Penn Act claim (Count Three) for discriminatory practice | Racial profiling and discriminatory practice by defendants under Penn Act | Penn Act does not provide a private right of action | Count Three dismissed |
| Spoliation of evidence (Count Eight) | Defendants destroyed evidence relevant to his claims | No showing that evidence was vital or destroyed in bad faith | Count Eight dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes Monell liability requires policy/custom causing constitutional violation)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) (Miranda failures alone do not violate rights under § 1983)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (conspiracy claims require plausible meeting of the minds with overt act)
- Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. City of New York Dep’t of Fin., 620 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2010) (adequacy of pleadings in § 1983 equal protection contexts)
- Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23 (1998) (private damages action under Connecticut Constitution recognized narrowly; future claims limited)
- Deshawn E. by Charlotte E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340 (2d Cir. 1998) (Miranda warnings cannot be basis for § 1983 claim)
- Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (2007) (qualified privilege for statements to police in criminal investigations)
- Ward v. Housatonic Area Reg’l Transit Dist., 154 F. Supp. 2d 339 (D. Conn. 2001) (private damages for Connecticut constitutional claims require careful consideration of private action limits)