Dominguez v. Walsh

Background

Emily Dominguez sued Rockland County, District Attorney Thomas E. Walsh, and Investigators Deidre Smith and Conor Fitzgerald under federal civil-rights laws and state law. Her Third Amended Complaint asserted ten claims, including excessive force and unreasonable seizure, First Amendment retaliation, malicious and selective prosecution, abuse of process, municipal liability, assault and battery, and false arrest.

Dominguez alleged that she and her mother supported Walsh’s political opponent in the 2019 election after declining to support Walsh. She alleged that Walsh then investigated her, sought damaging information about her, subjected her family to surveillance, and arranged for her arrest on election-related charges. She further alleged that Smith and Fitzgerald used excessive force while arresting and handcuffing her on November 30, 2021. The election-related charges were later dismissed. The opinion treats these facts as allegations that must be accepted as true for purposes of the dismissal motion.

The Motion to Dismiss

The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally recognized claim. They challenged certain claims against Walsh and sought dismissal of the federal and state abuse-of-process claims against all defendants. They principally argued that absolute prosecutorial immunity protected Walsh from most of the claims.

Prosecutorial Immunity

Absolute prosecutorial immunity generally protects a prosecutor from damages claims for conduct performed as an advocate for the government in the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court explained that the protection depends on the function performed, not simply on the person’s job title. Investigative conduct normally performed by police officers or detectives may fall outside that protection.

The court held that Walsh was absolutely immune from claims based on his decision to initiate and pursue the election-related prosecution, even accepting Dominguez’s allegations that the charges were false, retaliatory, or brought without probable cause. The court also held that Walsh was immune to the extent the claims were based on his direction of Dominguez’s arrest after that prosecution had begun.

The court reached a different procedural conclusion regarding the alleged investigation before the election-related prosecution began. Dominguez alleged that Walsh issued subpoenas, sought her tax returns, asked for damaging information about her, arranged surveillance, caused a nail to be placed in her vehicle’s tire, and had her cell phone seized. Because the complaint did not establish when a grand jury was convened or when the prosecutions began, the court could not determine from the complaint whether these actions were investigative or prosecutorial. The court therefore declined to rule at the dismissal stage that absolute immunity protected Walsh from claims based on that alleged investigative conduct. Walsh may renew the immunity argument at the summary-judgment stage.

The court also noted that arguments raised for the first time in the defendants’ reply seeking dismissal of the excessive-force claim and the state assault-and-battery claim against Walsh would not be considered in this motion.

Abuse of Process

The court granted the motion as to Counts Four and Nine, the federal and state abuse-of-process claims. Under the governing standard, abuse of process requires use of legal process, an intent to cause harm without justification, and a collateral objective—a purpose beyond the legitimate ends of the legal process.

The court held that Dominguez had alleged retaliation, retribution, silencing, and discrediting, but had not plausibly alleged a collateral objective beyond the criminal prosecution itself. An improper motive, including retaliation, was not enough. Counts Four and Nine were therefore dismissed against all defendants without prejudice because this was the first adjudication of those claims on the merits.

Disposition

The court denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion. It held that Walsh had absolute immunity for claims based on his decision to initiate and conduct the election-related prosecution, except for the excessive-force claim in Count One and the assault-and-battery claim in Count Seven to the extent described in the order. It declined to find him absolutely immune for claims based on his alleged investigative actions before that prosecution began. Counts Four and Nine were dismissed against all defendants without prejudice. Dominguez was given thirty days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies; if she did not timely amend, the dismissed claims could later be dismissed with prejudice.