Sienna v. Alicea
ORDER granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 8/22/17. (Ladd-Smith, I.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an equal protection action by plaintiff Delia Sienna against defendant Sarah
Alicea. Plaintiff is a female who resides in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Defendant is a police
officer with the Cromwell Police Department who responded to a domestic disturbance call at
plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff alleges that although both she and her husband had participated in
the verbal and physical altercation that precipitated defendant’s arrival, defendant arrested only
plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that she was deprived of her right to equal protection because of her
Defendant has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, defendant’s
motion will be granted.
A motion for summary judgment will be granted where there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "Only when reasonable minds could not
differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923
F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849 (1991).
The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any material factual
issue genuinely in dispute. American International Group, Inc. v. London American
International Corp., 664 F.2d 348, 351 (2d Cir. 1981). In determining whether a genuine factual
issue exists, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the
moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
If a nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of
his case with respect to which he has the burden of proof, then summary judgment is appropriate.
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. If the nonmoving party submits evidence which is "merely
colorable," legally sufficient opposition to the motion for summary judgment is not met.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claim
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State
shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is
essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of
Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). To establish a genderbased equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiff must show intentional
discrimination on the basis of gender. See Dutko v. Lofthouse, 549 F.Supp. 2d 187, 191 (D.
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s equal protection claim should fail as a matter of law
because plaintiff has not demonstrated that gender played a role in her arrest. Indeed, plaintiff’s
own responses to defendant’s interrogatories indicate that her husband’s friendship with
defendant was the underlying reason for any perceived mistreatment. When asked to state the
facts upon which she based her contention that Officer Alicea had discriminated against her
because of her gender, plaintiff responded:
Officer Alicea had and has an implied and pledged loyalty and friendship to my
husband Nicholas Sienna as well as his close friends and relatives of the Cromwell
At deposition, plaintiff recalled her husband telling her:
[Y]ou don’t even know; I’m friends with all the cops; no one’s ever gonna get me;
they’re all my friends, my dad’s friends; you’ll never win.
Plaintiff affirmed that her husband had repeatedly made statements about his friendship with
officers, particularly Officer Alicea.
Nevertheless, this case is not about unfair friendship-based bias; it is about alleged
unlawful gender bias. Yet plaintiff has presented no evidence that she was denied equal
treatment based on her gender. Merely holding a sincere belief that one’s gender played a role in
an arresting officer’s decision-making, without more, is not sufficient – especially in cases of
domestic violence – where any asymmetrical action by the police is susceptible to attack. Such
conclusory allegations of discrimination without evidentiary support do not establish a valid
claim. See Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. Of Elections, 470 F.3d 458, 470 (2d Cir. 2006).
Moreover, plaintiff and her husband are not similarly situated for purposes of equal
protection analysis. Witnesses at the scene corroborated the husband’s account of events,
including that plaintiff threw a bottle at him and struck him in the face with her hand, and that he
did not reciprocate. Conversely, testimony by witnesses, including plaintiff’s daughter,
contradicts plaintiff’s version of events. Accordingly, a reasonable police officer in defendant’s
position could have drawn legitimate distinctions between the conduct of plaintiff and that of her
husband. See Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Dept., 577 F.3d 415, 439 (2d Cir.
2009) (“Any equal protection claim is grounded on a comparison between treatment the state
gives similarly situated individuals.”). As plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute as to
whether defendant denied her equal protection of the law, defendant’s motion for summary
judgment will be granted.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 24] is
GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2017, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/Warren W. Eginton
WARREN W. EGINTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?