Cornish v. Town of Bloomfield et al
| ORane M. Cornish, Jr. |
| Town of Bloomfield, Jalisa X. Cuevas, Matthew T. Suplee, James E. Salvatore and Stephen Hajdasz |
| 3:2023cv01587 |
| December 4, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
RECOMMENDED RULING: On December 21, 2023, the Court entered an order recommending that the plaintiff's initial Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. (See Doc. No. #11 ). More specifically, the Court found that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the Complaint otherwise fails to state a cognizable due process or access to public records claim under Section 1983. (See id.). Additionally, the Court determined that the Complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief against the Town of Bloomfield. (Id.). On January 2, 2024, in lieu of filing any objections to the Court's Recommended Ruling (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)), the plaintiff instead filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. #13 ). The Amended Complaint sets forth substantially the same allegations as the plaintiff's initial Complaint, namely: (a) that on October 5, 2018, Lieutenant Suplee and Officer Cuevas issued a "Trespass Affidavit" as to the plaintiff without probable cause or "due diligence"; (b) that Lieutenant Salvatore and Captain Hajdasz violated the plaintiff's due process rights by deliberately concealing exculpatory evidence related to the "Trespass Affidavit"; and (c) that Lieutenant Salvatore and Captain Hajdasz "through multiple instances of denial and delay," deprived the plaintiff his right of access to public records (i.e., "FOI documents"). (See id.). The Amended Complaint also alleges a municipal liability ("Monell") claim against the Town of Bloomfield, and that the defendants failed to protect the plaintiff's liberty interests by neglecting to investigate or intervene in the racial discrimination occurring at the plaintiff's workplace. (Id.). Notwithstanding that neither the Court's initial Recommended Ruling, nor any other Court order, authorized the plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, the Court has nevertheless reviewed the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. As an initial matter, the Court reiterates that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim relating to the issuance of the "Trespass Affidavit" is plainly barred by the statute of limitations. The Amended Complaint argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because the Bloomfield Police Department's ("BPD") "investigation prolonged the resolution of the matter, preventing [the plaintiff] from timely pursuing legal action." (Doc. No. 13 at 5). However, even assuming that tolling is appropriate on those grounds, it would not impact the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, which stems not from the defendants' investigation, but from the issuance of the "Trespass Affidavit" on October 5, 2018. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007) ("it is the standard rule that [Section 1983] accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action") (internal quotation marks omitted). Relatedly, and as described in the Court's initial Recommended Ruling, even if the plaintiff's purported due process claim was timely, it is still subject to dismissal because it is well-established in this Circuit that there is no cognizable, stand-alone claim arising under Section 1983 for an alleged failure to investigate. McCaffrey v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-1636, 2013 WL 494025, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2013) ("[A] 'failure to investigate' is not independently cognizable as a stand-alone claim."). Moreover, the Court emphasizes that the plaintiff has not alleged that he was ever arrested or prosecuted in connection with the underlying incident. See Ying Li v. City of New York, 246 F. Supp. 3d 578, 633 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ("failure to pursue a particular investigative path does not give rise to an independent due process claim apart from claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, or violation of right to a fair trial."). For these same reasons, the Court further finds that the plaintiff's claims that the defendants failed to investigate the racial discrimination in the plaintiff's workplace, as well as his resulting termination, are also ripe for dismissal with prejudice. (See Doc. No. 13 at 9). The plaintiff's access to public records claim similarly fails for the reasons set forth in the Court's initial Recommended Ruling. Indeed, the Amended Complaint contains even fewer factual allegations supporting this claim than the initial Complaint. (See generally Doc. No. 13). In any event, the Court reiterates that the plaintiff's scant allegations are insufficient to state a claim pursuant to Section 1983, and that there is no federal constitutional right of access to public records requested pursuant to state-specific Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") provisions. See Richard v. Martin, No. 3:20-CV-1354 (CSH), 2022 WL 5246814, at *14 (D. Conn. Oct. 6, 2022) (plaintiff's allegation that state officials did not comply with Connecticut FOIA laws did not state a claim that his federally protected rights were violated). The Court also finds that the Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim against the Town of Bloomfield. Unlike the plaintiff's initial Complaint, the Amended Complaint does allege facts supporting a municipal liability claim against the Town of Bloomfield, i.e., that the underlying constitutional violations were a consequence of "the policies, customs, and practices of the [BPD]." (Id. at 8). More specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that "there exists a pattern or practice [within the BPD] of [f]ailing to adequately train and supervise officers regarding the proper investigation of citizen complaints... [a]llowing officers to issue Trespass Affidavits without proper investigation... [and] [c]oncealing evidence during internal investigations..." (Id.). Notwithstanding these more detailed allegations, dismissal of the plaintiff's Monell claim with prejudice is still warranted because the Amended Complaint fails to allege any underlying constitutional violation. See Mastromonaco v. Cty. of Westchester, 779 F. App'x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 2019) ("a Monell claim cannot succeed without an underlying constitutional violation, and here there is no constitutional violation."). Indeed, as set forth herein, the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and all of his remaining claims are incognizable under Section 1983. Cox v. City of New Rochelle, No. 17-CV-8193, 2019 WL 3778735, *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019) (citations omitted) (plaintiff failed to allege a Monell claim when his claims "are all barred by the statute of limitations or fail on the merits"). Accordingly, the plaintiff's Monell claim fails. Lastly, the Amended Complaint purports to set forth a claim for a "violation of 18 U.S. Code 287," related to Officer Cuevas's endorsement of the false accusations made by the plaintiff's employer, which the plaintiff alleges amounted to a "false claim" in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287. This claim fails because it is well-established that federal criminal statutes can only be invoked and enforced by the proper authorities of the United States government, and that a private citizen has no authority or standing to initiate a federal prosecution. See Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. App'x 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009) ("[F]ederal criminal statutes do not provide private causes of action."). For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint does not cure the fatal deficiencies identified in the Court's initial Recommended Ruling, or otherwise state any other plausible claim for relief. As such, the Court respectfully recommends that the Amended Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice. Insofar as the plaintiff has any objections to this Recommended Ruling, he must file them with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of being served with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections due by 1/22/2024. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on January 8, 2024. (Spears, Andrew)
|
| Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Jalisa X. Cuevas, Stephen Hajdasz, James E. Salvatore, Matthew T. Suplee, Town of Bloomfield, filed by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. No. #11 . Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on December 21, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 11
RECOMMENDED RULING: For the reasons stated in the attached Recommended Ruling, the plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. #2 ) is GRANTED, and the Court respectfully recommends that the plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice. More specifically, the Court finds that: (a) the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (b) the plaintiff's purported due process claim, if not untimely, is nevertheless incognizable under Section 1983; and (c) the plaintiff's access to public records claim is similarly incognizable under Section 1983. The Court further finds that the plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for relief against the Town of Bloomfield. This is a recommended ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of being served with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any party receiving notice of an order or recommended ruling from the Clerk by mail shall have five (5) additional days to file any objection. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a). Failure to timely object will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 6(a), 6(e); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2; Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); FDIC v. Hillcrest Assocs., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995). Objections due by 1/4/2024. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on December 21, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER VACATING ORDER 4 and ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/14/2023. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector.(Gould, K.)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER denying #8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A plaintiff in a civil case is not entitled to appointment of counsel on request and the Second Circuit repeatedly cautions against the routine appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Insofar as volunteer lawyer time is not always readily available, a plaintiff seeking appointment of counsel must show first that he "sought counsel and has been unable to obtain it." McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1988). Once a plaintiff has made this showing, he must then demonstrate that his complaint passes the test of "likely merit." Cooper, 877 F.2d at 173. He must demonstrate that the claims in the complaint have a sufficient basis to justify appointing a volunteer lawyer to pursue them. Notably, "even where a claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the [plaintiff's] chances of success are extremely slim." Id. at 171. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has sought but has, as of yet, been unable to obtain counsel. However, at this nascent stage of the litigation, the Court cannot ascertain the "likely merit" of Plaintiff's claims. Indeed, the complaint is currently undergoing review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. The #8 Motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice should facts develop through the litigation that permit reassessment of this issue. Plaintiff may find information about the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program at the following link: https://nhlegal.org/federalprose/. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to mail Plaintiff information on the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/14/2023. (Haider, Syeda)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 4
*VACATED* ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish for ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/6/2023. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish.(Gould, K.) Modified on 12/14/2023 (Gould, K.).
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/4/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/4/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/2/2024 Discovery due by 6/4/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 7/9/2024. Signed by Clerk on 12/4/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 12/4/2023. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jalisa X. Cuevas, Stephen Hajdasz, James E. Salvatore, Matthew T. Suplee, Town of Bloomfield, filed by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Peterson, M) |
| Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Shafer, J.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
