MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff Melissa Lozada commenced the above-captioned action on April 27, 2011, against New York State Troopers Charles Weilminster and Christopher Nolan, (collectively, “State Defendants”), the Wa-ntagh Fire District, and forty-one volunteer firefighters from the Wantagh Fire District, including Courtney Baranowski,
I. Background
a. State Defendants
At the time of the events which are the basis for this action, State Defendants were New York State Troopers employed by the New York State Police, and were acting both under color of state law and under color of their authority as New York State Troopers. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 3; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 3.
b. Fire District Defendants
Baranowski and Hutchison were certified emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) who volunteered for the Wa-ntagh Fire District. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 15, 82; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 15, 82.) At the time of the events at issue in this action, Baranowski was the senior medical personnel in the Fire District, and she had taken additional training courses to become “critical care certified.” (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 84; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 84.) Lindgren was a volunteer fire chief at the time of the incident that forms the basis for this action. (Tr. of Dep. of Jeff Lindgren, dated Feb. 11, 2013, annexed to FD Def. Mot. as Ex. J (“Lindgren Dep.”) 7:21-8:14.) As Chief in charge of the scene, Lindgren was in charge of scene safety and ensuring that the members of the Wantagh Fire District remained safe, and ensuring that the “aided” — Plaintiff, in this case — received proper medical attention. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 44-45; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶¶ 44-45.)
c. April 28, 2009 incident
On April 28, 2009, at approximately 12:38 AM, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 8; FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 1; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff, who was alone in her vehicle and had been falling asleep while driving, ran her car off of the roadway and into a guardrail when she failed to navigate an exit ramp at Exit 28 on the westbound Southern State Parkway. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 8; see also FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 2-3.) The impact caused the Plaintiffs airbag to deploy, and Plaintiff raised her arms and hands in front of her face to protect herself from injuries resulting from the airbag. (State Def. 56.1 IT 9; Pl. State 56.1 ¶9; FD Def. 56.1 ¶4; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 4.) The inflating airbag left a burn mark on the inside of Plaintiffs left elbow. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 9; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 9; FD Def. 56.1 ¶4; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶4.) According to Plaintiff, the airbag did not touch her face or hands, and Plaintiff was otherwise uninjured. (Pl. Counter 56.1 ¶¶ 14, 16; Tr. of Pl. Dep., dated Oct. 10, 2012, annexed to FD Def. Mot. as Ex. F. (“Pl. Dep.”) 52:3-8.) Plaintiffs vehicle eventually came to rest with a driver’s side tire touching the guardrail; Plaintiff was initially unable to open the driver’s side door. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 5; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff called 911 from her vehicle to report the accident, and. exited her car while on the telephone to ascertain her location and the extent of the damage to her car. (State Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 10-11; Pl. State 56.1 ¶¶ 10-11; FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 6; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 6.) At least one other person also called 911 to report the accident. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 10; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff did not know whether the police or the ambulance arrived at the scene of the accident first, but ultimately the police, ambulance, and tow truck were all present. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 8.) Two fire chief vehicles and two engine trucks also arrived at the scene of the accident. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 10; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 10.) In total, about eight fire department members were present. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 48; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 48.) According to Plaintiff, except for one bystander who briefly asked if she was injured and left before Plaintiff telephoned 911, there were no bystanders or other members of the public around during the events which followed the emergency response. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 4; FD
i. State Defendants’ response
In response to a notification that the accident had occurred, State Defendants arrived on the scene. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 12; see also FD Def. 56.1¶ 12.) When State Defendants arrived on the scene, they spoke with Plaintiff in order to determine what had happened and whether she was injured. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 13; see also FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 13.) Both then returned to their car to fill out an accident report. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl. State 56.1¶ 13; FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 13.)
ii. Fire District Defendants’ response
Members of the Wantagh Fire District and a tow truck operator also responded to the scene following the 911 calls from Plaintiff and another individual. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 14; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 14.) Volunteer Fire Chiefs Lindgren and Jackowitz both received the call and reported directly to the scene in their “chief vehicles.” (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 14; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 14.) Volunteer EMTs and firefighters, including Baranowski and Hutchison, received the alarm call on their pagers and proceeded to the scene of the accident in an ambulance. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 15-18; Pl. FD 56.1¶¶ 15-18.) When the ambulance parked at the scene, Baranowski and Hutchison took the basic gear and basic life support (“BLS”) equipment from the ambulance and approached Plaintiffs vehicle. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 18-19; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶¶ 18-19.) They saw Plaintiff sitting in the front passenger seat of her vehicle with the door open and the dome light on. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 19; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶19.)
According to Fire District Defendants, at this point, Baranowski and Hutchison tried to perform a preliminary patient assessment by asking Plaintiff her name, birthdate, address, social security number and past medical history, but Plaintiff initially refused to provide any information, indicating at first that she did not have or did not know the answer to the questions. (Baranowski Dep. 187:3-188:22.) To Bara-nowski, Plaintiff at first appeared confused, though calm. (Baranowski Dep. 78:4-20.) Hutchison perceived that Plaintiff was not speaking normally, but noted that she was not slurring her words either. (Hutchison Dep. 139:4-13.) Soon after, around the time when Hutchison asked Plaintiff for her social security number, Plaintiff started to raise her voice and became belligerent, questioning why they needed this information. (Baranowski’ Dep. 76:19-79:16; Hutchison Dep. 82:4-82:22, 136:9-145:7.) The EMTs noticed a sweet odor, possibility indicative of alcohol or of a diabetic crisis, on Plaintiff’s breath, and perceived that Plaintiffs pupils were dilated.
Plaintiff asserts that when the EMTs first arrived, she was alert, calm and coherent. (Pl. Counter 56.1 ¶ 27; Baranow-ski Dep. 78:3-16; Tr. of Dep. of Christopher Nolan dated Dec. 18, 2012, annexed to FD Def. Mot. as Ex. L (“Nolan Dep.”), 58:18-21; Tr. of Dep. of Charles Weilmin-ster dated Dec. 19, 2012, annexed to FD Def. Mot. as Ex. M (“Weilminster Dep.”), 31:3-5 (“She was normal.”).) She told the EMTs that she felt fine and did not need to go to the hospital, and was more concerned about what would happen to her vehicle and about contacting her mother to come pick her up. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 5, annexed to Pl. Counter 56.1 as Ex. 3.) Plaintiff agrees that she was directed to sign a medical release form or be taken to the hospital against her will, but asserts that she was not inclined to do so without understanding the purpose of the form,or why she needed to sign it. (Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 6-7.) She argues that on her refusal, the emergency responders raised their voices to her. (Pl. Counter 56.1 ¶ 34; Hutchison Dep. 184:3-7 (admitting that she may have raised her voice to Plaintiff “[m]aybe toward the end ... when I started to get frustrated.”).)
It is undisputed that Plaintiff refused medical attention from the Wantagh Fire District members at the scene of the accident. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 34.) Plaintiff was asked to sign the RMA, and was told that she either had to sign the form or go to a hospital. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 30.) Plaintiff refused to sign the form. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 31; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 31.) Plaintiff did not recall how many times she was asked to sign the form. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 36; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 36.) Sometime after Plaintiff refused to sign the form, Lindgren advised the fire department personnel that they could start packing up to leave the scene. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶49; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 49.)
iii. Plaintiffs arrest
Shortly after the Plaintiff refused to sign the form, Plaintiff requested to speak to the police and a member of the Wa-ntagh Fire District approached the patrol car where the State Troopers were located. (State Def. 56.1 ¶20; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 20; FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 38; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 38.) Plaintiff overheard one of the State Troopers, who she believed to be Trooper Nolan, say that she did not have to sign the medical release form. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 56; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 56.) Plaintiff did not overhear any other part of the conversation between the fire department personnel
According to Defendants, Lindgren approached State Defendants, who had returned to their vehicle and closed • the doors, and requested assistance with Plaintiff, including assistance in ascertaining her signature on the RMA.
Defendants contend that Trooper Nolan approached Plaintiff, at which point she began screaming “fuck you” and other obscenities at him. (Nolan Dep. 87:11-22; Lindgren Dep. 129:7-130:20.) Nolan repeatedly warned Plaintiff that if she did not calm down she would be arrested, but she continued to yell obscenities. (Nolan Dep. 87:23-88:11, 112:21-115:16, 120:5-16; see also FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 60-63; State Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 23-24.) Nolan arrested Plaintiff for disorderly conduct and handcuffed her. (Nolan Dep. 115:12-116:22; see also FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 63-64; PI. Counter 56.1 ¶ 46.) According to Defendants, while Trooper Nolan was attempting to handcuff her, Plaintiff dropped to her knees and lay down on the ground with her hands underneath her body in an attempt to avoid being handcuffed. (Nolan -Dep. 116:6-22, 117:15-19.) Trooper Weilminster, observing Plaintiffs actions, came over from the State Police vehicle to assist Nolan in handcuffing Plaintiffs hands behind her back. (Nolan Dep. 118:15-119:3; Weilmin-ster Dep. 47:17-23; see also PI. Counter 56.1 ¶ 40.)
Plaintiff contends that a Trooper, the same one she overheard say she did not have to sign the form, came over to her and informed Plaintiff that she could either sign the form or face arrest. (PL Aff. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff telephoned her mother from the front seat of her car. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 10.) At that point, the Trooper grabbed Plaintiff out of her vehicle and either caused her to fall, pushed her, or “slammed” her onto the grass, causing her to hit her head. (PL Aff. ¶ 11; Pl. Dep. 108:11-113:10.) Plaintiff alleges that this caused injuries to her arms and knees, as well. (PL Aff. ¶ 11; Pl. Dep. 112:3-19.) Plaintiff began to cry, but asserts that she did not yell profanities to anyone, or use obscene language or gestures.
After State Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, they escorted Plaintiff to their patrol car and seated her in the rear of the vehicle on the passenger side. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 27; Pl. State 56.1 ¶27.) When Lindgren observed that Plaintiff was handcuffed and.in police custody, he started to release members of the fire department from the scene. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 65; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 65.) Plaintiff remained in handcuffs for approximately five minutes, at which time Plaintiff requested removal of the handcuffs and one of the State Defendants removed them. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 28; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 28.) Plaintiff then told State Defendants that she wanted to speak with a police supervisor. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 29; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 29.) Trooper Nolan called the State Police barracks and notified personnel that Plaintiff had requested to speak with a supervisor. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 30.)
' Several minutes later, New York State Police Sergeant David Schneck arrived at the scene, in response to Trooper Nolan’s request for a supervisor. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 31; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 31.) Plaintiff informed Sergeant Schneck that she wanted to lodge a complaint against the Trooper that pulled her out of her car. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 14.) Sergeant Schneck transported Plaintiff to the police barracks, located in Farmingdale, in the front seat of his car. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 32; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 32.) At the barracks, Sergeant Schneck photographed Plaintiff and gave her a complaint form to complete. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 32; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that he also informed her that she was being charged with disorderly conduct. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff filled out, but did not sign, the complaint form. The parties dispute the reason as to why Plaintiff did not sign the complaint. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 32; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 32.) In her affidavit in opposition to the instant motion, Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Schneck did not permit Plaintiff to finalize the complaint against the Trooper because “he said he had to investigate the matter further.” (Pl. Aff. ¶ 16). In her deposition and in the hearing following Plaintiffs filing of a notice of claim against the Wantagh Fire District, pursuant to New York General Municipal Law section 50-h, Plaintiff testified that she did not sign the complaint because she was waiting for her sister, who is also her counsel, to arrive. (Pl. Dep. 156:8-157:2; Tr. of Hrg. Pursuant to Sec. 50-h, dated Dec. 17, 2009, annexed to FD Def. Mot. as Ex. E (“50-h Tr”) 55:20-56:4, 68:15-69:14.) Sergeant Schneck also recalls Plaintiff refusing to sign the complaint, though she was given the opportunity to do so. (Tr. of Schneck Dep., annexed to Decl. of Dorothy Nese in Support of State Def. Mot. for Summary Judgment (“Nese Decl.”) as Ex. J (“Schneck Dep.”) 116:23-117:15.)
At some point, Sergeant Schneck called the East Farmingdale Fire Department to the police station, where Plaintiff again refused medical attention. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 34.) In the meantime, Trooper Nolan had returned to the police barracks in Farmingdale. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 33; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 33.) There, he processed Plaintiffs arrest paperwork,
v. Plaintiffs hospitalization
After leaving the police station, Plaintiff went to Franklin Hospital with her brother, where she presented herself in the emergency room complaining of “bruises and possible head contusion due to police brutality,” and injury to her wrists and right elbow. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 34; PI. State 56.1 ¶ 34.) The emergency room records also reflect that Plaintiff complained that the police “grabbed her.” (Emergency Department Triage, annexed to Nese Deck as Ex. L.) Plaintiff was discharged and did not receive any further treatment for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of the April 28, 2009 incident. (State Def. 56.1 ¶36; PL State 56.1 ¶ 36.)
d. Reports filed subsequent to April 28, 2009
Fire District Defendants were required to complete and submit a PCR following the April 28, 2009 incident. The PCR includes boxes for the patient’s pedigree information, agency codes, date and time of the alarm, and for subjective and objective assessments of the treatment rendered to the patient. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶77; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶ 77.) Hutchison began to complete the pedigree section of the PCR report at the scene on April 28, 2009. (FD Def. 56.1 ¶ 67; PL FD 56.1 ¶ 67.) Bara-nowski completed the report in the back of the ambulance and at the fire station, after which it was faxed to dispatch and put into a slot at the station “to be sent to New York State as required.” (FD Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 67-68; Pl. FD 56.1 ¶¶ 67-68.)
e. Disorderly conduct charges
Ultimately, the charge of disorderly conduct under N.Y. Penal Law section 240.20 was dismissed on motion of Plaintiffs attorney. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 33; PL State 56.1 ¶ 33.) The District Court, Nassau County, First District Criminal Term, found the factual allegations supporting the charge of disorderly conduct, as written, were “facially insufficient” to establish that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct. (See People v. Lozada, Index No.2009NA011994 (Dist.Ct. Sept. 2, 2009), annexed to Pl. Counter 56.1 as Ex. 4.). Plaintiff was required to appear in court “[a]bout three times” to have the charges dismissed. (50-h Tr. 58:24-59:4.)
II. Discussion
a. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Bronzini v. Classic Sec., LLC,
b. Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claims
Plaintiff has alleged four separate claims arising from violations of her Fourth Amendment rights against all Defendants: (1) false arrest, (2) excessive force, (3) malicious prosecution, and (4) unlawful seizure.
i. False arrest
In assessing Fourth Amendment claims of false arrest brought under Section 1983, courts generally look to the law of the state in which the arrest is alleged to have occurred. Russo v. City of Bridgeport,
1. State Defendants
It is undisputed that both Trooper Nolan and Trooper Weilminster were involved in arresting Plaintiff and handcuffing her, that she was aware of their actions, and that she did not consent to them. Thus, whether State Defendants are liable for false arrest turns on whether the confinement was privileged, that is, whether they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.
State Defendants argue that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, which is justification for the arrest and a complete defense to an action for false arrest. (State Def. Mem. 21.) State Defendants contend that the information provided to
Under New York Law, a person is guilty. of the violation of disorderly conduct when:
with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: 1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or 2. He makes unreasonable noise; or 3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or 4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or 5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or 6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or 7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20. The Second Circuit has held “that probable cause for a disorderly conduct violation under N.Y. . Penal Law [section] 240.20 exists only where a reasonable person in the officer’s circumstances would have believed that the person to be arrested acted ‘with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or with recklessness as to a risk thereof.’ ” McClellan v. City of Rensselaer,
The existence of probable cause turns on what information State Defendants had at the time of Plaintiffs arrest. The record reflects two conflicting versions of Plaintiffs behavior at the scene. Defendants contend that Plaintiff was behaving in a belligerent manner, making unreasonable noise and using obscene language. Plaintiff contends that she was not, and points to both her own and Defendants’ testimony which indicates that Plaintiff was “calm” and “normal” at points throughout her short interaction with the State Troopers and Wantagh Fire District members. Even accepting as fact the testimony that Fire District members told the Troopers that Plaintiff was using obscene language and being very loud, Trooper Nolan thereafter had an opportunity to observe Plaintiff, and, by her account, she was at that point very calm. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence in the record to con-
2. Fire District Defendants
Fire District Defendants argue that because they are non-police actors, the Plaintiff must show that they took an active role' in Plaintiffs arrest, “such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act, and that the defendant intended that the plaintiff be confined.” (FD Def. Mem. 11-12.) Fire District Defendants also argue that Plaintiff failed to show that Baranowski, Hutchison or Lind-gren instigated her arrest or persuaded the State Troopers to arrest her. (FD Def. Mem. 12-13; FD Def. Reply Mem. 19.) They contend that the evidence shows they did nothing more than request the assistance of the Troopers. (FD Def. Mem. 12.) Plaintiff argues that Fire District Defendants instigated her arrest, and that State Defendants would not have placed her under arrest had Fire District Defendants not requested their assistance in obtaining the signature on the RMA form. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 18.) She further argues that the Fire District Defendants and State Defendants conspired to bring about her arrest, and the events that followed. (Id.)
The first prong of a false arrest claim, intent to confine, may be shown by evidence that a defendant either (a) actually confined or intended to confine a plaintiff himself, or (b) “affirmatively procured or instigated the plaintiffs arrest.” King v. Crossland Sav. Bank,
Plaintiff relies heavily on the “secretive conversation” between Fire District Defendants and State Defendants. (PL Opp’n Mem. 18.) However, Plaintiffs speculation about what Fire District Defendants said to State Defendants is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact about what information Fire District Defendants provided State Defendants, and whether or not they can be said to have “instigated” or “procured” Plaintiffs arrest. Even assuming Plaintiff was calm and was not yelling or gesticulating, and Fire District Defendants still told State Defendants that Plaintiff was behaving irrationally, yelling and cursing, (see Ling-dren Dep. 175:15-176:25; Nolan Dep. 61:23-62:8), the inaccurate information provided to the State Troopers cannot be said to have “instigated” Plaintiffs arrest. As discussed above, Trooper Nolan had the opportunity to observe Plaintiff and make his own determination as to whether her behavior warranted arrest.
Plaintiff also argues that Fire District Defendants were acting “in concert” with State Defendants to violate her rights. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 18.) She argues that their secretive conversation, only one part of which she heard, creates a genuine issue as to whether Fire District Defendants and State Defendants conspired to have her falsely arrested. (PI.' Opp’n Mem. 18.) Fire District Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to establish a conspiracy between State Defendants and any -of Fire District Defendants which would give rise to liability for her arrest. (FD Def. Mem. 13-14.) Fire District Defendants argue that Baranowski and Hutchison were merely performing their duties as NYS-certified EMTs and were in good faith attempting to either assess Plaintiffs mental and physical status, or to determine whether she needed to be transported to a hospital. (FD Def. Mem. 14.) Fire District Defendants further contend that when Plaintiff repeatedly refused to sign the form and “started yelling,” Chief Lindgren instructed all of the Fire District personnel to stay away from Plaintiff. (FD Def. Mem. 15.) They contend that the most any of the individual Fire District Defendants did was inform the State Troopers that Plaintiff was acting erratically and yelling at the EMTs. (FD Def. Mem. 15.)
“To prove a § 1983 conspiracy, a plaintiff must show: (1) an agreement between two or more state actors or between a state actor and a private entity; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages.” Pangburn v. Culbertson,
The only evidence before the Court shows that the conversation between the State Troopers and any Fire District member is that Lindgren and/or Baranowski (1) obtained the attention of the State Troopers, who were sitting in their vehicle with closed doors and windows, (2) informed
Plaintiff has not shown sufficient evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendants agreed to “act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury,” and thus cannot hold Fire District Defendants liable under a theory of conspiracy liability. See Pangburn,
Fire District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs false arrest claim is granted.
ii. Excessive force
“The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of unreasonable and therefore excessive force by a police officer” in the course of an arrest. Tracy v. Freshwater,
1. State Defendants
State Defendants claim that Plaintiff cannot maintain an excessive force claim because removing Plaintiff from her vehicle was de minimis force, State Defendants used no more force than necessary to handcuff her, and they removed the handcuffs as soon as Plaintiff requested they be removed.
According to Plaintiff, she was sitting peacefully in her car, attempting to make a "telephone call, when Trooper Nolan approached her. Trooper Nolan grabbed her, dragged her from her vehicle, pushed her to the ground, and, with the assistance of Trooper Weilminster, handcuffed her behind her back. (PI. Aff. ¶ 11; PI. Dep. 108:11-113:10.) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, whether Trooper Nolan even had probable cause to arrest her is questionable, and there is no indication that she was trying to resist arrest. Plaintiff visited the hospital following her departure from the police barracks, and complained of injuries including bruised wrists. (PL Dep. 196:12-197:10, 201:13-19.) She also testified that she informed the hospital staff that she had sustained an injury to hear head and knees.
State Defendants are liable for excessive force as long as the force used exceeded the force needed given the totality of the circumstances. Weather v. City of Mount Vernon, No. 08-CV-192,
Under the totality of the circumstances, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could
The Court denies State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs excessive force claim.
2. Fire District Defendants
Fire District Defendants argue that there is no evidence that Hutchison, Baranowski or Lindgren encouraged and requested State Defendants to apply intimidation or force to Plaintiff. (FD Def. Reply Mem. 18.) Plaintiff contends that they “played an active role in threatening her, involving the police to threaten her, and then conspiring to have Plaintiff transported against her will or arrested,” and they “encouraged and requested that the State Defendants apply intimidation or force to the Plaintiff....” (PI. Opp’n Mem. 17.)
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence to support her speculation regarding what Fire District Defendants discussed with State Defendants and otherwise has not shown sufficient facts to support her theory of conspiracy. “Allegations which are nothing more than broad, simple, and concluso-ry statements are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983.” Younger v. City of New York,
Fire District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs excessive force claim is granted.
iii. Malicious prosecution
Plaintiff asserts a malicious prosecution claim based on the issuance of a desk appearance ticket for disorderly conduct, which she argues was issued because she filed a complaint against Troopers Nolan and Weilminster. (PL Opp’n Mem. 19) Under New York law, the elements of a malicious prosecution claim are “(1) the initiation or continuation of a criminal proceeding against plaintiff, (2) termination of the proceeding in plaintiffs favor, (3) lack of probable cause for commencing the proceeding; and (4) actual malice as a motivation for defendant’s actions.” Morris v. Silvestre,
1. State Defendants
State Defendants argue that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, which is justification for Plaintiffs prosecution. (State Def. Mem. 21.) The Court has addressed this issue above, in Part Il.b.i.l of this Memorandum and Order, and will not do so again here. State Defendants further contend that the dismissal of the disorderly conduct charges against Plaintiff were not “terminated in her favor” as required to sustain a malicious prosecution claim. (State Def. Mem. 22-23.)
To state a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must “demonstrate a final termination of the criminal proceeding in her favor, or at least ‘not inconsistent with [her] innocence.’ ” Okoi v. El Al Israel Airlines,
The Order issued by the Queens County Criminal Court shows that the court dismissed the accusatory instrument alleging a violation of N.Y. Penal Law section 240.20 for facial insufficiency. (See People v. Lozada, Index No. 2009NA011994 (Dist.Ct. Sept. 2, 2009), annexed to PI. Counter 56.1 as Ex. 4.) The court concluded that the accusatory instrument lacked factual allegations supporting one element of the alleged violation, namely, that “there is no indication that the [Plaintiffs] act carried public ramification as the nature and number of those attracted to the incident is not articulated.... ” and thus dismissed the instrument pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law section 170.30(l)(a). (Id.) This alone is insufficient to show that the charge was finally terminated in her favor.
2. Fire District Defendants
Fire District Defendants argue that the facts unequivocally establish that Bara-nowski, Hutchison and Lindgren did not in any way initiate judicial proceedings against Plaintiff and did not direct the State Trooper to arrest Plaintiff or otherwise initiate the proceedings against her. (FD Def. Mem. 17.) Plaintiff argues that Fire District Defendants soug;ht the assistance of the State Troopers for the specific purpose of orchestrating her arrest, and arguing that if it was not for their request, Plaintiff would not have been arrested or charged. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 20.) For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants summary judgment to Fire District Defen
iv. Unlawful seizure
Plaintiff argues that the same alleged actions which give rise to Plaintiffs claim for false arrest also support a claim for unlawful seizure of her person. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 17.) A Section “1983 claim for false arrest derives from [a plaintiffs] Fourth Amendment right to remain free from unreasonable seizures, which includes the right to remain free from arrest absent probable cause.” Jaegly,
c. Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation
Plaintiff argues that she was arrested for refusing to sign the RMA portion of the form, in violation of her First Amendment right to refuse to provide personal information as well as the right to refuse to sign the paperwork. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 12-13.) Plaintiff also argues that even if the Defendants’ version of events were true, Plaintiff had a First Amendment right to yell profanities on a public highway in the middle of the night. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 13.)
To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) she has a right protected by the First Amendment; (2) the defendant’s actions were motivated or substantially caused by her exercise of that right; and (3) the defendant’s actions caused her injury. Dorsett v. Cnty. of Nassau,
i. State Defendants
1. Motivation
State Defendants concede that Plaintiff had a right under the First Amendment to refuse to sign the RMA form as requested by Fire District Defendants. (State Def. Mem. 11.) State Defendants argue, however, that Plaintiffs argument fails on the second prong of the test because State Defendants had probable cause to arrest and charge Plaintiff with the crime of Disorderly Conduct, a violation of New York Penal Law section 240.20. (Id. 11-14.) . State Defendants’ argue that their perception of Plaintiffs behavior, which is corroborated by the testimony of Fire District Defendants, including her screaming and using obscenities and refusal to comply with Trooper Nolan’s admonition to stop her behavior or face arrest, gave State Defendants probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. (Id. 13-14.) State Defendants further argue that “[s]peeific proof of im
“Specific proof of improper motivation is required in order for plaintiff to survive summary judgment on a First Amendment retaliation claim.” Curley,
Plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Trooper Nolan was motivated by improper retaliatory animus, rather than a good-faith desire to enforce the disorderly conduct law.
However, Plaintiff has not made any showing as to Trooper Weilminster’s
2. Injury
State Defendants further argue that even if they lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and they were motivated by Plaintiffs exercise of her First Amendment rights, the circumstances show that their actions did not chill Plaintiffs exercise of those rights, because Plaintiff never signed the RMA form. (State Def. Mem. 14.) Plaintiff argues that her speech was chilled because, upon her arrest, she yelled that she would sign the form, which was “the intended result for all of the [Defendants.” (PI. Opp’n Mem. 14.)
The Second Circuit has recently clarified that Plaintiffs speech need not be chilled to satisfy the third prong of the test. To prevail on the third prong of the test, a plaintiff must show either that her speech was adversely affected by defendant’s actions, or that she has suffered some other concrete harm. Dorsett,
Plaintiff has presented evidence, in the form of her testimony, which could support a finding that Trooper Nolan arrested her for, and charged her with, disorderly conduct because she refused to sign the RMA form. Plaintiff testified that Trooper Nolan told her she could sign the form or face arrest, (PI. Aff. ¶ 9; PI. Dep. 101:25-104:24, 107:17-108:20), and the evidence indicates that Trooper Nolan did arrest her and processed her paperwork for the disorderly conduct charge, (State Def. 56.1 ¶33; PI. State 56.1 ¶33). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has created a question of fact as to whether she has sustained an injury that was causally connected to her exercise of First Amendment rights. See Norton,
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim against Trooper Weilminster, but denies the motion as to Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim against Trooper Nolan,
ii. Fire District Defendants
Fire District Defendants argue that based on a totality of the circumstances, including Plaintiffs confused, erratic and agitated behavior and the fact that completion of the form was mandated by New York State, “it cannot be said that chilling the Plaintiffs purported protected speech or conduct” was a substantial or motivating factor of the EMTs actions. (FD Def. Mem. 10) Fire' District Defendants also argue that the evidence shows that the EMTs were attempting to execute their duties to assess a patient and provide care in good faith, but upon multiple refusals of medical attention and refusal to sign the form by Plaintiff, they had the State Trooper witness her refusal to sign the form, and the EMTs and other fire district members packed up and went back to the station. (FD Def. Reply Mem. 17.)
Plaintiff has not presented evidence that would create a genuine issue' of material fact as to the motivation of Fire District Defendants’ actions toward her. Plaintiffs only evidence as to Fire District Defendants’ motivation is their repeated request that she sign the form, their communication with the State Troopers, and the fact that she overheard one of the State Troopers say that Plaintiff did not have to sign the medical release form. While the evidence may suggest that Fire District Defendants hoped to persuade Plaintiff to sign the form, there is nothing to suggest that they, intended to suppress her ultimate right to refuse to sign, or were otherwise involved in orchestrating her subsequent arrest. Thus, the Court grants Fire District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim.
d. Section 1983 due process claims
i. Fifth Amendment
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs claim for denial of due propess under the Fifth Amendment fails as a matter of law because the Fifth Amendment due process clause applies only to federal officials. (State Def. Mem. 19; State Def. Reply Mem. 6-7; FD Def. Mem. 17; FD Def. Reply Mem. 20.) “Because the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for deprivation of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment where, as here, there are no allegations of federal action.” Cortlandt v. Westchester Cnty., No. 07-CV-1783,
ii. Fourteenth Amendment
Plaintiff argues that she suffered multiple deprivations of liberty in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including: (1) being handcuffed; (2) being held at the police barracks until she was presented with a
To the extent Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claims are based on what she alleges to be a “brutal attack[],” State Defendants argue that these claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth and not the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus her Fourteenth Amendment claim should be dismissed. (State Def. Mem. 20; State Def. Reply Mem. 7.) State Defendants further argue that Plaintiff “does not cite to any procedural defects in the manner in which she was arrested, charged or prosecuted.” (State Def. Reply Mem. 7.) Rather, her complaints appear to center around the manner and circumstances of her arrest, handcuffing and detention. (Id.) Fire District Defendants argue that there is no evidence that they deprived Plaintiff of life, liberty or property, and argue that they did not instigate Plaintiffs arrest or persuade the State Trooper to arrest her, and did not otherwise have any involvement in any alleged deprivation. (FD Def. Mem. 18; FD Def. Reply Mem. 20.)
Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claims sound in false arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive force, and are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. “Where ‘the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against [a type] of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analysis]....’” Maliha v. Faluotico,
e. Section 1983 conspiracy
As discussed above, Plaintiffs vague and conclusory allegations do not satisfy the requirements to establish a conspiracy between Fire District Defendants and State Defendants to violate her constitutional rights. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to do so, Plaintiff cannot show that a conspiracy existed between the State Defendants, as no such claim can stand because the State Troopers were both part of the same entity.
f. Section 1983 qualified immunity
Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated well-established constitutional rights, and it was not objectively reasonable for Defendants to behave as they did. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 24.) As discussed above, Plaintiff has presented sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could find, that State Defendants are liable for her false arrest and excessive force claims and that Trooper Nolan is responsible for her First Amendment claim. Gilles v. Repicky,
“[A] decision dismissing a claim based on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage may only be granted when a court finds that an official has met his or her burden demonstrating that no rational jury could conclude ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” Coollick v. Hughes,
i. False arrest
State Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim for false arrest because the facts, when read in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, do not show that an objectively reasonable officer in State Defendants’ position would have known he was violating a clearly established constitutional right. (State Def. Mem. 26.) State Defendants point'to the fact that members of the Wantagh Fire District gave them information about Plaintiffs behavior, and they observed Plaintiffs erratic behavior, which provided them with probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. State Defendants argue that this shows that it was objectively reasonable for State Defendants to believe that their actions did not violate clearly established law. (State Def. Mem. 27; State Def. Reply Mem. 10-12.)
For Fourth Amendment violations including false arrest, “[a]n officer’s determination is objectively reasonable if there was ‘arguable’ probable cause at the time of the arrest — that is, if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was met.” Gonzalez,
Based on the testimony, the Fire District members . did inform State Defendants that Plaintiff had been yelling obscenities at them on the highway, which may weigh in support of finding “arguable probable cause.” See Morris,
ii. Excessive force and First Amendment claims
State Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s other claims. State Defendants insist that the totality of the circumstances, including what they believe to have been probable cause, coupled with the small amount of force used and short amount of time Plaintiff was in handcuffs, illustrate the objective reasonableness of their actions. (State Def. Mem. 27; State Def. Reply Mem. 10-12.)
“A grant of qualified immunity allows public officials to be ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Kennedy v. Lehman,
Here, Defendants do not- dispute that the rights Plaintiff asserts were clearly established, but rather argue that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances. However, whether Trooper Nolan took any action against Plaintiff in retaliation for her exercise of a First Amendment right, what force was used when State Defendants arrested Plaintiff, and whether the amount of force State Defendants used when arresting Plaintiff was excessive, are all questions of fact for the jury to determine.
g. Section 1983 municipal liability
Plaintiff argues that the Wantagh Fire District should be held liable for Fire District Defendants’ violations of her civil rights pursuant to Section 1983 because (1) it established unwritten procedures and policies that encouraged the alleged violations, (2) individual Fire District members were specifically trained to engage in the acts which led to the alleged violations, and (3) the alleged violations were sanctioned by Lindgren, the Fire Chief, whom Plaintiff alleges to be a policy-maker. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 22-23.) Fire District Defendants contend that Plaintiff has presented nothing but her own conclusory allegations to sustain her claim that the Wantagh Fire District has established an unwritten policy or custom to protect its volunteer firefighters from civil liability “by arranging for a potential claimant to be arrested without probable cause and based on false allegations.” (FD Def. Mem. 19.)
In order to sustain a claim for relief pursuant to Section 1983 against a municipal defendant, a plaintiff must show the existence of an official policy or custom that caused injury, and a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the deprivation of a constitutional right. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y.,
Because the Court has determined that Plaintiff has not shown an underlying constitutional violation by the individual Fire
h. State law negligence
Plaintiff also brings a state law negligence action under New York common law. State Defendants urge the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims, assuming the dismissal of all federal claims. (State Def. Mem. 28; State Def. Reply Mem. 12.) Because the Court has not dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal actions, State Defendants’ motion cannot succeed on this ground. All Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs state law claims fail as a matter of law.
Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the Defendants were negligent in the performance of their duties, in training/and or supervision of their employees or agents, which caused a deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff also alleges that she sustained personal injury as a result of such negligence. (Compl. ¶40.) Plaintiff argues, that Defendants negligently breached the duty to (1) refrain from infringing on her constitutional rights, (2) accurately report incidents on official documents, (3) refrain from making false statements, (4) respect Plaintiffs “personal and privacy rights,” and (5) respect Plaintiffs right to refuse to be examined or to sign a legal document. (PL Opp’n Mem. 21.)
To the extent Plaintiff is seeking relief for any alleged constitutional violations, Plaintiff cannot sustain a negligence claim for deprivation of constitutional rights. See Salim v. Proulx,
Beyond her false arrest, excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims, Plaintiff has not shown any evidence that her vague allegations of negligence can survive. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff cannot maintain a suit sounding in ordinary negligence against the individual Fire District Defendants, pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law section 205-b. See Lynch v. Waters,
All Defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs negligence claims are granted.
i. Punitive Damages
Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to punitive damages as a remedy because Defendants acted egregiously and willfully, because Defendants acted in accordance with unconstitutional customs and policies, and because of what Plaintiff alleges to be the “falsification” of incident reports and deposition testimony relating to the April 28, 2009 incident, which show malice on the part of Defendants. (PI. Opp’n Mem. 25.) State Defendants pppose Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. (State Def. Reply Mem. 10.)
Punitive damages are available to a plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim who has shown that defendants acted with ‘“reckless or callous disregard for plaintiffs rights and intentionally violates federal law.’” Lazaratos v. Ruiz, No. 00-CV-2221,
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs claims for false arrest and excessive force against Trooper Nolan and Trooper Weilminster, Plaintiffs claim for First Amendment retaliation against Trooper Nolan, qualified immunity, and punitive damages. The Court grants State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs malicious prosecution, unlawful seizure, due process, conspiracy and negligence claims against both Defendants, as well as State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim against Trooper Weilminster. Fire District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Defendant Courtney Baranowski was initially identified as "Courtney Whitefield” in the Complaint, and has since changed her last name from either Whitefield or Whitfield to Baranowski. (See FD Def. Mem. 4.)
. Defendant Amanda Hutchison was incorrectly identified as "Amanda Hutchinson” in the Complaint.
. The other thirty-eight original Defendants entered into a stipulation of discontinuance -executed on March 6, 2013, and filed with this Court on April 3, 2013. (Docket Entry No. 35.) Despite this fact, the thirty-eight original Defendants joined the Fire District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Those thirty-eight Defendants have been dismissed from this action, (Docket Entry No. 90), and thus have no basis on which to move before this Court for summary judgment.
.Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that her claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is also for violations of her rights guaranteed by the same amendments to the Constitution of the State of New York. (Compl. ¶ 30.) It is not clear to the Court what specific provisions
. In her opposition papers, Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is warranted in her favor. (Pl. Opp'n Mem. 2.) For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, to the extent Plaintiff has moved for summaty judgment, her motion is denied.
. Plaintiff submitted one statement of material facts which responds to both the State Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts pursuant to Rule 56.1 and the Fire District Defendants’ statement pursuant to Rule 56.1, and also presents her own counter-statement of facts. (See Pl. Rule 56.1 Statement in Opp'n to Summary Judgment Mot., Docket Entry No. 88-17.) Each of these three sections of the document contains numbered paragraphs beginning with number 1. For clarity, the Court refers to each set of numbered paragraphs as follows: Plaintiff's responses to the State Defendants will be cited as "Pl. State 56.1,” Plaintiff’s responses to the Fire District Defendants will be cited as “Pl. FD 56.1” and Plaintiff's own counter-statement, to which Defendants object as improper, will be cited as "Pl. Counter 56.1.”
. Plaintiff highlights that though the EMTs remember Plaintiff's pupils were dilated, they could not remember that Plaintiff's eyes were blue. (Baranowski Dep. 123:22-24, 232:7-9; Hutchison Dep. 99:13-15.)
. Less than twenty-four hours before the incident, Plaintiff had taken her first dose of Lexapro, which had been prescribed to her by a doctor. (State Def. 56.1 ¶ 19; Pl. State 56.1 ¶ 19.) The parties disagree as to what affect, if any, this may have had on Plaintiff.
.Nolan could not recall if the EMTs or fire department personnel asked him to get Plaintiff to sign the medical form. (Nolan Dep. 97:7-13, 100:10-12.) Baranowski recalled asking him to do so, and recalled that Trooper Nolan approached Plaintiff with the form and returned to the Fire District personnel "maybe a minute and a half, two minutes later” to inform them that she refused to sign the RMA. (Baranowski Dep. 36:14-37:8, 80:9-16.)
. Nolan did not know what the Fire District Defendants’ policy was regarding the RMA, but suggested this to them on his own. (Nolan Dep. 101:6-102:12.)
. Plaintiff submits that her mother was still on the telephone with Plaintiff when Trooper
. Plaintiff does not raise parallel state law tort claims for any of the alleged violations.
. State Defendants allege that Trooper Nolan "clearly had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff,” making the minimal force exercised to remove Plaintiff from her car reasonable, and the use of handcuffs reasonable. (State Def. Reply Mem. 4.) However, as discussed above, whether State Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff is an issue properly determined by a jury. Furthermore, even assuming State Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, the use of force and handcuffs, though it may be standard procedure, is not per se acceptable. Soares v. Connecticut,
. Plaintiff has done nothing more than present conclusory arguments, without citations to controlling or persuasive authority, that the dismissal constituted a termination in her favor. Under New York law, there are two ways to establish a favorable termination: (1) an adjudication on the merits, or (2) an act of withdrawal or abandonment on the part of the prosecuting authority. See Morgan v. Nassau Cnty., No. 03-CV-5109,
. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the point of whether Defendants had probable cause to arrest her because her desk appearance ticket for disorderly conduct was dismissed for facial insufficiency. (PI. Opp'n Mem. 13.) The facts presented before the Court are different from the facts presented on the desk appearance ticket, and the facts as presented here show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether State Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.
. To the extent Plaintiff is also attempting to assert a false arrest claim for holding her for an unreasonable amount of time while she awaited the issuance of a desk appearance ticket, Plaintiff has failed to establish. (1) the officers required her to wait while they prepared the desk appearance ticket, and (2) that she was held for an unreasonable amount of time. See Bryant v. City of New York,
. See Little v. City of New York,
. Fire District Defendants also argue that Baranowski, Hutchison and Lindgren are entitled to qualified immunity because they all acted in good faith in performing their duties with respect to the Plaintiff. They argue that each individual Fire District Defendant responded to a 911 call requesting emergency assistance, attempted to discharge their professional duties while on the scene of an emergency, and attempted to provide proper and appropriate medical care to Plaintiff. (FD Def. Mem. 22.) Fire District Defendants further argue that their actions reflected an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were lawful. (FD Def. Mem. 24.) Because the Court grants summary judgment to Fire District Defendants on all of Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims, the Court declines to decide whether Fire District Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.
. But cf. Lennon v. Miller,