Hoegemann v. Palma et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Dismiss; granting 29 Motion to Dismiss; denying 17 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate Mr. Lagana, Mr. Cardona, Ms. Fortuna, and Ms. Thompson from this case. (Riegel, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RICHARD HOEGEMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:16-cv-1460 (VAB)

DENATO PALMA, et al.,
Defendant.

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Richard Hoegemann (“Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint against East Haven Police
Officer Donato Palma and Connecticut Parole Officers Jennifer Desena, James Long, Frank
Mirto, Randy Lagana, Michael Cardona, Kate Fortuna, and Sheila Thompson. Specifically, Mr.
Hoegemann asserts that Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona violated Mr. Hoegemann’s rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment, and Mr. Mirto, Ms. Desena, Mr. Long, Ms. Furtuna, Ms. Thompson,
Mr. Palma violated Mr. Hoegemann’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Mr. Palma now moves to dismiss the Complaint, or, in the alternative, he asks the Court
to enter summary judgment in his favor. ECF No. 17.
Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona have moved to dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 28
Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson have moved to dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 29.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona’s motion to
dismiss and GRANTS Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson’s motion to dismiss. The Court DENIES
Mr. Palma’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal.

1

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2016, Mr. Hoegemann, proceeding pro se, sued East Haven Police Officer

Donato Palma and Connecticut Parole Officers Jennifer Desena, James Long, Frank Mirto,
Randy Lagana, Michael Cardona, Kate Fortuna and Sheila Thompson. ECF No. 1. Specifically,
Mr. Hoegemann asserted that Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona violated Mr. Hoegemann’s rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment; Mr. Mirto, Ms. Desena, Mr. Long, Ms. Furtuna, Ms.
Thompson, and Mr. Palma violated Mr. Hoegemann’s rights under the Fourth Amendment;
Defendants violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights; and Ms. Desena violated his
First Amendment rights. Mr. Hoegemann also brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985
and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.
On February 2, 2017, the Court issued an Initial Review Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
dismissing all claims but Mr. Hoegemann’s § 1983 claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. ECF No. 8. Mr. Hoegemann’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due
process clause against Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona; the Fourth Amendment against Mr. Mirto,
Ms. Desena, Mr. Long, Ms. Furtuna, Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Palma for false arrest and
unreasonable search and seizure; and the Fourth Amendment against Ms. Desena, Mr. Long, and
Mr. Palma for violation of Mr. Hoegemann’s right to privacy survived. All claims are against
Defendants in their personal capacities.
On April 25, 2017, counsel appeared on behalf of Mr. Hoegemann. ECF No. 22.
Mr. Palma has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or, in the
alternative, under summarily enter judgment against Mr. Hoegemann under Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona have moved to dismiss the Complaint as against them. ECF
No. 28. Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson have also moved to dismiss as against them. ECF No.
29.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Court will dismiss any claim that fails “to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Court may also grant summary judgment if the record shows no genuine issue as to
any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cartrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona

The Complaint asserts that Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona violated Mr. Hoegemann’s
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Mr. Hoegemann does not object to
Mr. Lagans and Mr. Cardona’s motion to dismiss.
The Court therefore dismisses Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona from this case.
B.

Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson

The Complaint asserts that Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson violated Mr. Hoegemann’s
rights under the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Hoegemann does not object to Ms. Fortuna and Ms.
Thompson’s motion to dismiss.
The Court therefore dismisses Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson from this case.

3

C.

Mr. Palma

The Complaint maintains that Mr. Palma violated Mr. Hoegemann’s right to privacy
under the Fourteenth Amendment and that Mr. Palma conducted an unreasonable search and
seizure of Mr. Hoegemann in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Palma argues that Mr.
Hoegemann has failed to state a claim upon which this court may grant relief, or, in the
alternative, argues that there exists no genuine dispute of material fact.
At the time that Mr. Palma moved to dismiss the complaint, Mr. Hoegemann was
proceeding pro se. Mr. Palma failed to provide notice to Mr. Hoegemann, as required under
Local Rules 12 and 56(b). See L.R. 12(a) (“Any represented party moving to dismiss the
complaint of a self-represented party shall file and serve, as a separate document in the form set
forth below, a ‘Notice to Self-Represented Litigant Concerning Motion to Dismiss.’ The movant
shall attach to the notice copies of the full text of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Civil Rule 7.”); L.R. 56(b) (“Any represented party moving for summary judgment
against a self-represented party must file and serve, as a separate document, in the form set forth
below, a ‘Notice to Self-Represented Litigant Concerning Motion for Summary Judgment.’ The
movant shall attach to the notice copies of the full text of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and of this Local Civil Rule 56.”); see e.g., Telkamp v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. Atl.,
No. 3:15-cv-726 (JCH), 2016 WL 7428189, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 23, 2016) (noting that the
defendants duly served the plaintiff with notice consistent with L.R. 12(a) before dismissing the
plaintiff’s complaint); Bunting v. Kellogg’s Corp., No. 3:14-cv-621 (VAB), 2016 WL 659661, at
*2 (D. Conn. Feb. 18, 2016) (“[T]he Court cannot grant the Defendants’ motion because they
failed to serve Mr. Bunting with the required notice under Local Rule 56(b).”).

4

Mr. Palma also has not complied with L.R. 56(a). See L.R. 56(a)(1) (“A party moving for
summary judgment shall file and serve with the motion and supporting memorandum a
document entitled “Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” which sets forth,
in separately numbered paragraphs meeting the requirements of Local Rule 56(a)3, a concise
statement of each material fact as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue
to be tried.”); cf. Egri v. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., 270 F. Supp. 2d 285, 291 (D.
Conn. 2002) (“A [56(a)(2)] statement that is not in compliance with the Local Rules is the
equivalent of no filing at all . . . .).
Under Local Rules 12 and 56, the Court denies Mr. Palma’s motion to dismiss without
prejudice to renewal.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Mr. Lagana and Mr. Cardona’s

motion and GRANTS Ms. Fortuna and Ms. Thompson’s motion. The Court DENIES Mr.
Palma’s motion without prejudice to renewal.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate Mr. Lagana, Mr. Cardona, Ms. Fortuna,
and Ms. Thompson from this case.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 17th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5