Mozdziak v. Romeo

Background

Stefan Mozdziak brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. The claims arose from his expulsion from State University of New York Maritime College and his arrest by New York State University Police—Maritime officers.

About a week after the expulsion, officers Mark Martinez, Richard Paulino, and Michael Perdoncin arrested Mozdziak and processed him on charges of criminal mischief and making graffiti. The charges were later dismissed and sealed. Mozdziak alleged that the officers caused the prosecution to begin without probable cause and withheld exculpatory information from prosecutors. He also alleged that a New York state appellate court annulled his expulsion based on the withholding of N.T.’s statement.

The complaint asserted claims for false arrest or unlawful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial or due process, failure to intervene, and supervisory liability. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim.

Personal Involvement and Group Pleading

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege Arianne Romeo’s personal involvement. Although it alleged that Romeo received statements accusing Mozdziak of carving the epithet, it did not allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that she received or knew about N.T.’s email or participated in the disciplinary proceeding. The court found the complaint’s additional allegation that Romeo and the officers participated in, supervised, or failed to stop the alleged violations too vague and conclusory to state a claim against Romeo.

The court reached a different conclusion for the three officer defendants. The complaint alleged that they arrested Mozdziak, caused criminal charges to be filed without probable cause, and withheld exculpatory information from prosecutors. Those allegations sufficiently described their personal involvement at the pleading stage.

The court also rejected defendants’ argument that the complaint improperly grouped the officer defendants together. Although the allegations did not distinguish each officer’s individual actions, the court found that the complaint gave each officer fair notice of the claims and the factual basis for them.

Police Report and Judicial Notice

The court took judicial notice of the university police report and the existence and contents of the sworn witness statements it contained, but not for the truth of what those statements asserted. The court concluded that it could consider what the statements said when analyzing probable cause because the report had been filed with a state-court proceeding referenced in the complaint and Mozdziak did not dispute the report’s accuracy concerning the existence of the statements.

False Arrest

A false-arrest claim requires allegations that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, the plaintiff knew of the confinement, did not consent, and the confinement was not privileged. Probable cause generally makes an arrest privileged. The court stated that the N.T. email arguably raised doubt about probable cause because it indicated that the etching existed before the two students said they saw Mozdziak create it.

The court did not decide whether actual probable cause existed. It held instead that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right. Even if actual probable cause was absent, the officers would have “arguable probable cause” if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe probable cause existed or if reasonable officers could disagree about that issue.

The court found that two sworn statements from purported eyewitnesses supported the arrest, while N.T.’s email was unsworn and did not describe witnessing the incident. Mozdziak did not identify clearly established authority showing that probable cause was absent in those circumstances. The court therefore held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the false-arrest claims as pleaded.

Malicious Prosecution

A malicious-prosecution claim requires allegations that a prosecution was initiated, brought with malice and without probable cause, and ended in the plaintiff’s favor. The court held that arguable probable cause also defeats such a claim when qualified immunity applies. For the reasons given in the false-arrest discussion, the court found arguable probable cause and noted that the complaint did not allege that information arising before dismissal of the charges eliminated that probable cause. The officers therefore were entitled to qualified immunity for the malicious-prosecution claims as pleaded.

Fair-Trial Claim

The court explained that a fair-trial claim based on fabricated or withheld evidence requires, among other things, an alleged deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Mozdziak alleged that the officers withheld N.T.’s email from prosecutors, but he did not allege that he was held before trial because of charges based on that withholding. The court therefore held that he had not adequately pleaded a fair-trial claim.

Failure to Intervene and Supervisory Liability

The court held that a failure-to-intervene claim cannot succeed without an underlying constitutional violation. It likewise held that supervisory liability could not proceed without such an underlying violation. Because the complaint did not sufficiently allege an underlying constitutional violation for which Mozdziak was entitled to relief, the court stated that both claims must be dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The ruling was without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend filed no later than August 25, 2025. Any such motion had to include a clean proposed amended complaint, a redlined version showing changes from the original complaint, and a memorandum explaining why the proposed amendments would not be futile.