Warner v. Freeman et al

Filing 50

ORDER : See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 9/23/16.(Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JAMES M. WARNER,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM T. FREEMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO.

3:14cv1192(DFM)

ORDER
Today the court granted the defendants' motions for summary
judgment on the plaintiff's false arrest claim and denied the
motions on the malicious prosecution claim.

See doc. #49.

On the

record before the court, however, it appears that the plaintiff has
not plausibly alleged that the defendants "initiated or procured
criminal proceedings" against him, an essential element.
To satisfy this element, the plaintiff must do more than
merely claim that the officers arrested and detained him without
probable cause. Rather, he must allege that the officers committed
some improper act after they arrested him without probable cause,
for example, that they pressured or influenced the prosecutors to
charge him, made knowing misstatements to the prosecutor, testified
untruthfully, or covered up exculpatory evidence.

See Manganiello

v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149, 163 (2d Cir. 2010) ("To initiate
a prosecution, a defendant must do more than report the crime or
give testimony. He must play an active role in the prosecution,
such

as

giving

authorities

to

advice
act.");

and

encouragement

Salatto

v.

City

or

importuning
of

Milford,

the
No.

3:08cv1071(MRK), 2012 WL 774612, at *9 (D. Conn. Mar. 7, 2012)

(granting
Defendants

summary

judgment

initiated

or

where

procured

"there

is

criminal

no

evidence

proceedings

that

against

[plaintiff]"); Nelson v. City of Stamford, No. 3:09cv1690(VLB),
2012 WL 601776, at *4 (D. Conn. Feb. 23, 2012)(granting summary
judgment as to malicious prosecution claim where plaintiff "failed
to present any evidence to indicate that the Defendant Officers
played any role in prosecuting [him] . . . where they were merely
the arresting officers"); Luzzi v. Hirsch, No. 3:10cv481(MRK), 2011
WL 6780968, at *7 (D. Conn. Oct. 20, 2011)("[a]bsent a claim that
[the officers] played more of an essential or influential role in
seeking or procuring the . . . indictment, [plaintiffs'] bare-bones
assertions against them are insufficient to state a claim for
malicious

prosecution");

3:07cv214(RNC),

2010

2010)(granting

summary

WL

Kennedy
1286789,

judgment

v.

at

where

*6

Chamberland,
(D.

Conn.

plaintiff

No.

Mar.

30,

"offer[ed]

no

evidence that the officer exerted pressure on the prosecutors,
submitted knowing misstatements to them or concealed evidence from
them"); Simpson v. Denardo, No. 3:02cv1471(MRK), 2004 WL 1737444,
at *9 (D. Conn. July 29, 2004) (granting summary judgment where
plaintiff failed to present "evidence to satisfy the initial prong
of a malicious prosecution claim - that [defendants] initiated or
procured criminal proceedings against [her]"); Edelman v. Laux, No.
CV115005710, 2013 WL 4504793, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 26,
2013)("Under

Connecticut

law,

'[a]

person

is

deemed

to

have

initiated a proceeding if his direction or request, or pressure of
2

any kind by him, was the determining factor in the officer's
decision to commence the prosecution . . . .'").
In the circumstances of this case, the purposes of Rule 1 are
best served by testing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's
claim

in

advance

of

jury

selection.

The

court

will

permit

defendants to file another dispositive motion, this one aimed at
the

element

of

discussed above.

the

plaintiff's

malicious

prosecution

claim

The motion, with appropriate supporting papers,

shall be filed by October 28, 2016.
SO

ORDERED

at

Hartford,

Connecticut

this

23rd

day

September, 2016.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3

of