Fragola vs Plainville Police Department, et al
ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, the Plainville defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 40 ) is GRANTED. This case is otherwise dismissed as to the prosecutor defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e)(2)(B). This dismissal is with prejudice for lack of any indication that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/22/2017. (Gruber, Sarah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
No. 3:16-cv-886 (JAM)
PLAINVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
Plaintiff has filed this civil rights suit against a police department, police officers, and
prosecutors arising from events that led to his conviction in Connecticut state court. Three of the
five defendants have moved to dismiss, and plaintiff has failed to file a response. Because I
conclude that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any of the defendants, I will dismiss this
According to his complaint, plaintiff Dean Fragola responded to an advertisement on the
internet placed by a woman that was trying to “break into the porn business.” Doc. #1 at ¶ 5.
Plaintiff offered to assist the woman in her pursuit of an adult film career, reaching out to her by
text, e-mail, and a voice message, and creating posters of her photographs and posting her
pictures on his twitter account. Id. at ¶¶ 5–7. The woman then “decided to lie to police and tell
them that he had hacked into her accounts.” Id. at ¶ 9. Police conducted a search of plaintiff’s
residence, id. at ¶13, and seized items of his personal property. Id. at ¶19. Plaintiff was charged
in Connecticut state court and ultimately pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of second-degree
harassment, criminal impersonation, and second-degree stalking. He was sentenced to up to one
year of incarceration, execution suspended, and a conditional discharge for 2 years. Id. at ¶¶ 14,
18; see also Doc. #40-3 at 2 (conviction case detail from judicial branch website, indicating
suspension of jail time and 2 years of conditional discharge).
Plaintiff now brings this civil rights action against defendants Plainville Police
Department, Sergeant (now Lieutenant) Nicholas Mullins, Detective David Posadas, and
prosecuting attorneys David Lee and Paul Rotiroti pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint
alleges three claims: (1) false arrest and false imprisonment in violation of the Fourth
Amendment; (2) a “takings” of his property under the Fifth Amendment; and (3) a civil
conspiracy to violate his civil rights.
On November 4, 2016, defendants Mullins, Posadas, and the Plainville Police
Department (the “Plainville defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for failure to
state a claim. Plaintiff never filed a response to the motion to dismiss or any motion for extension
of time.1 For this reason and because, as discussed below, the pleadings do not provide sufficient
grounds to deny the motion, the motion to dismiss is granted pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
In addition, I have also considered the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss and
conclude that the complaint fails to state a claim for substantially the reasons set forth in their
supporting memorandum of law. First, as to plaintiff’s claim under the Fourth Amendment,
plaintiff’s claim necessarily calls into question the validity of his convictions, and therefore his
During the course of a teleconference this afternoon, plaintiff’s counsel stated that she had not filed a
response because she had not been able to reach her client. The Court does not consider this a satisfactory reason for
counsel’s failure to file a response, because counsel never filed a motion for extension of time citing this reason.
Moreover, it came to light during the course of the teleconference that plaintiff has failed to timely respond to
defendants’ discovery request. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel has previously delayed this case by failing to timely
file a Rule 26(f) report. See Docs. #30, #36. This overall course of dilatory conduct should not be rewarded with the
grant of additional extensions of time. Because it is plaintiff through counsel who has filed this lawsuit seeking relief
from the Court and from the defendant parties, it is not too much to ask that plaintiff’s counsel have complied with
the Court’s rules.
claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87
(1994). Moreover, the fact of his convictions negates his ability to make the requisite showing
that there was no probable cause for his arrest and imprisonment. See Davis v. Rodriguez, 364
F.3d 424, 433 (2d Cir. 2004). Second, as to plaintiff’s takings claim, plaintiff has not exhausted
state remedies. See Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City,
473 U.S. 172, 194–95 (1985); Komondy v. Gioco, 59 F. Supp. 3d 469, 476–78 (D. Conn. 2014).
Lastly, plaintiff’s conspiracy claim fails for lack of an actionable constitutional claim of
Plaintiff’s claims against the defendant prosecutors are also subject to sua sponte
dismissal on the same grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, prosecutors
have absolute immunity from suits for money damages arising from the exercise of their
traditional prosecution functions. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 429, 430–31 (1976); Giraldo
v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 165–67 (2d Cir. 2012).
For the foregoing reasons, the Plainville defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #40) is
GRANTED. This case is otherwise dismissed as to the prosecutor defendants pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This dismissal is with prejudice for lack of any indication that the
deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment. The Clerk of Court shall close this
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 22nd day of February, 2017.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
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?