Mpala v. Funaro et al
Filing
81
ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration of ruling on summary judgment. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 1/6/16. (Esposito, A.) Modified on 1/6/2016 (Freberg, B).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
ZEWEE MPALA
:
:
v.
:
:
JOSEPH FUNARO, M. PITONIAK,
:
S. KLOSTCHE AND E. RAPUANO
:
:
------------------------------x
Civ. No. 3:13CV00252(SALM)
January 6, 2016
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. #77]
The plaintiff, Zewee Mpala (“Mpala”), brought this action
against defendants Joseph Funaro, Martin Pitoniak, Eric Rapuano,
and Ernest Klostche, asserting claims of malicious prosecution
and false arrest. On August 27, 2013, the action against Ernest
Klostche was dismissed. [Doc. #17] On November 19, 2015, the
Court granted the remaining defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on all counts. [Doc. #74] The plaintiff now moves for
reconsideration of that ruling.
I.
Procedural History
Mpala was arrested by the defendants, all officers of the
Yale Police Department, in the Yale Law School building on March
6, 2010. [Doc. #57 at 2] Mpala was charged with two offenses
under Connecticut law: criminal trespass in the second degree,
in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-108, and interfering with
an officer, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167a.
[Complaint ¶10] These charges were heard in Superior Court on
1
April 6, 2011, together with a separate charge of trespassing
arising out of Mpala’s arrest on Yale property in September
2010.1 [Doc. #58-2]
At the April 6, 2011, hearing, the State agreed to “enter
nolles on both files.” [Doc. #58-2, Tr. 2:23-24] Attorney
Michael Richards, who was the attorney representing Mpala, moved
for the cases to be dismissed with prejudice rather than nolled.
Id. 2:27-3:1. The State agreed, on the condition that Mpala
stipulate to the presence of probable cause for the arrests. Id.
3:2-4. After some discussion amongst counsel and the Court, all
parties agreed that such a stipulation could be entered on
Mpala’s behalf by his attorney without Mpala’s physical
presence. Id. 3:5-10. The stipulation was entered, and the cases
were dismissed with prejudice. Id.
On February 25, 2013, Mpala filed the instant action
alleging causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for
malicious prosecution and false arrest. [Doc. #1] Mpala filed a
motion to dismiss claims against defendant Klostche on August
25, 2013, which was granted. [Doc. ##16, 17] The defendants
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 21, 2015. [Doc. #56]
New counsel appeared for Mpala on July 31, 2015, and oral
1
Mpala filed a separate suit in this Court alleging that the
September 2010 arrest was unlawful. See Mpala v. Sires,
3:13CV01226(AVC). Summary judgment was granted in favor of the
defendant in that matter, and on reconsideration, the Court
adhered to that ruling. See id., Doc. #37, Doc. #45.
2
argument on the motion for summary judgment was conducted before
the Court on October 30, 2015. [Doc. ##63, 64]
The Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on the ground that the stipulation of probable cause
made by Attorney Richards in the state court criminal case is
valid and binding on Mpala, and because the absence of probable
cause is a necessary element of both a false arrest and a
malicious prosecution claim, Mpala could not prevail on either
of his claims. [Doc. #74] The Court further noted that even if
there had been no stipulation, there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to the presence of probable cause, and summary
judgment in favor of the defendants would be appropriate on that
basis as well.
II.
Legal Standard
The plaintiff cites Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, governing motions to amend a judgment, as the
basis for his motion.2 The motion is captioned, however, as a
motion for reconsideration, which would be brought under Local
Rule 7(c). “Motions for reconsideration under [the District of
Connecticut Local Rules] are as a practical matter the same
2
The plaintiff includes a block quotation in his brief which
purports to be from Reynolds v. Science Applications, Inc., 12
F. Supp. 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court has attempted to find
this case on Westlaw by various search methods, and has been
unable to do so. That block quotation of unknown origins is the
only law cited by the plaintiff in his brief.
3
thing as motions for amendment of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) -- each seeks to reopen a district court’s decision on the
theory that the court made mistaken findings in the first
instance.” City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 133 (2d Cir.
1991). Under either rule,
[t]he
standard
for
granting
a
motion
for
reconsideration is strict. See Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Such a motion
“will generally be denied unless the moving party can
point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached
by the court.” Id. A “motion to reconsider should not
be granted where the moving party seeks solely to
relitigate an issue already decided.” Id.
Palmer v. Sena, 474 F. Supp. 2d 353, 355 (D. Conn. 2007).
Here, the plaintiff offers three bases for his motion to
reconsider.3 First, he argues that there is evidence of malice in
the record that would support a finding for the plaintiff on his
malicious prosecution claim. This argument appears to respond to
a footnote in the Court’s summary judgment ruling, in which the
Court noted a lack of evidence of malice in the record. [Doc.
#74 at 16 n.3] The plaintiff has not pointed to any matters
regarding the question of malice that would alter the Court’s
decision. Indeed, Footnote 9 was not the basis for the Court’s
3
In addition to the three arguments identified, the motion
argues that the Court should consider a newspaper article,
stating that the article will be electronically filed on
December 4, 2015. [Doc. #77 at 4-5] No such article was filed
and the Court has no reason to believe that any news article
would affect its decision in this matter.
4
grant of summary judgment, and nothing about the plaintiff’s
argument on this point affects the Court’s conclusion regarding
the binding nature of the state court stipulation or the
presence of probable cause for the arrests. Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration on this basis is denied.
The plaintiff’s second argument is that he plans to move to
amend his complaint to add additional claims. On September 12,
2013, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. [Doc. #18] The Court thereafter directed the
plaintiff to file either a response to the motion or an amended
complaint on or before October 3, 2013. [Doc. #19] On October 5,
2013, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, but did
not elect to file an amended complaint. [Doc. #27] The motion
for judgment on the pleadings was denied on October 17, 2013.
[Doc. #29] The record reveals no requests by the plaintiff to
file an amended complaint at any point. There is no basis to
permit an amendment of the complaint at this late date, two
years after the deadline. Accordingly, the motion for
reconsideration on this basis is denied.
Finally, the plaintiff contends that there is “missing
evidence” that is necessary to the Court’s decision.
Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that the transcripts of the
underlying criminal cases are missing. [Doc. #77 at 3] However,
the transcript of the proceeding resolving the two cases cited
5
by the plaintiff (N23N-CR-10103044-S and N23N-CR-100109403-S) is
in fact attached to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
[Doc. #58-2] The Court quoted directly from the transcript in
its ruling on the motion for summary judgment. [Doc. #74 at 12]
As such, the plaintiff’s claim that the transcript is missing is
confusing, at best. The transcript is not missing, and it was
considered by the Court in rendering its decision. Accordingly,
the motion for reconsideration on this basis is denied.
III. Conclusion
The Court granted summary judgment in this matter on the
grounds that the undisputed evidence established that Mpala’s
attorney validly and properly stipulated that probable cause did
exist for the arrests, and Mpala is bound by that stipulation.
The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not provide any
controlling law or data that was overlooked by the Court in
reaching that conclusion. Accordingly, and for the reasons set
forth herein, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc.
#77] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 6th day of
January 2016.
_______/s/___________________
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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.
Why Is My Information Online?