Avalos v. Enfield et al
Filing
39
ORDER granting 25 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 04/25/2016. (LaPre, E.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ERIC AVALOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF ENFIELD, ET AL.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15-cv-00902 (VAB)
APRIL 25, 2016
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff, Eric Avalos, filed this action concerning the circumstances of his arrest on or
about February 22, 2014 by Defendants, the Town of Enfield and officers of the Enfield Police
Department. All defendants, except Officer Matthew Worden, move to dismiss the claims
asserted against the officers in their official capacities.1 The motion is GRANTED. Because the
Town of Enfield is named as a defendant, the Court will dismiss as duplicative all claims
asserted against the movant officers in their official capacities.
“[O]fficial-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action
against an entity of which an officer is an agent[.]” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). “As long as the government entity receives notice and an
opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated
as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 167 n.14 (1985) (“There is
no longer a need to bring official-capacity actions against local government officials . . . .”);
accord Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183, 191 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An official capacity suit against
1
Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 37), but the Court disregarded it as untimely. After the Court granted
Plaintiff an extension of time, the deadline to file an opposition was November 3, 2015. Order, ECF No. 28.
Plaintiff filed his opposition twenty-two days late without seeking an extension of time.
1
a public servant is treated as one against the governmental entity itself.”). “[I]n a suit against a
public entity, naming officials of the public entity in their official capacities ‘add[s] nothing to
the suit.’” Davis v. Stratton, 360 F. App’x 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Gernetzke v.
Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 274 F.3d 464, 466 (7th Cir. 2001)).
In light of these principles, district courts within the Second Circuit consistently dismiss
as duplicative claims asserted against officials in their official capacities where the plaintiff has
named the municipal entity as a defendant. See Phillips v. Cty. of Orange, 894 F. Supp. 2d 345,
384 n.35 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (collecting cases); e.g., Kanderskaya v. City of New York, 11 F. Supp.
3d 431, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (dismissing with prejudice claims against police officer in official
capacity “because they are duplicative of [plaintiff’s] other claims against [municipality].”),
aff’d, 590 F. App’x 112 (2d Cir. 2015); Ferreira v. Town of E. Hampton, 56 F. Supp. 3d 211,
237 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Because the Town is named as a defendant in the instant case, the Court
grants summary judgment as to all claims for the individual defendants in their official
capacities.”); Canzoneri v. Inc. Vill. of Rockville Ctr., 986 F. Supp. 2d 194, 205 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
(dismissing official capacity claims against individual officers “because they are duplicative of
the Monell claims against the [municipality].”); Wallikas v. Harder, 67 F. Supp. 2d 82, 83–84
(N.D.N.Y. 1999) (noting that “claims against municipal officials in their official capacities are
really claims against the municipality and, thus, are redundant when the municipality is also
named as a defendant” and dismissing federal and state law claims asserted against county
sheriffs in their official capacities).
Connecticut courts have recognized these principles as well. See Kelly v. City of New
Haven, 881 A.2d 978, 988–89 (Conn. 2005) (“It is well settled law that an action against a
government official in his or her official capacity is not an action against the official, but,
2
instead, is one against the official’s office and, thus, is treated as an action against the entity
itself.”); Himmelstein v. Bernard, 57 A.3d 384, 391 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012) (“Having been sued
in his official capacity, [defendant police sergeant] is one with the town. Thus, the plaintiff’s
present action against [defendant police sergeant] is merely a redundant claim of nuisance
against the town.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. All claims
asserted against the movant officers in their official capacities are dismissed.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this twenty-fifth day of April, 2016.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden__________________
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?