Bierce v. Rosado

Background

Scott Bierce had been a certified New York police officer for more than 35 years and had worked for the Town of Fishkill Police Department for most of that time. He alleged that the police chief took retaliatory actions against him because of protected speech, leading Bierce to resign on December 2, 2019.

The Police Department initially reported Bierce’s departure as a standard retirement or resignation. It later asked the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to change the record to a removal for cause. DCJS then informed Bierce that his police-officer basic-training certification had been invalidated. After later requests from Town officials, DCJS changed his status to a standard resignation on February 10, 2025, effective December 2, 2019.

DCJS also told Bierce that his certification had expired on December 2, 2023, because New York law limits the certificate’s validity to four years after an interruption in police service. DCJS stated that, if Bierce were appointed as a police officer before December 2, 2029, he could complete a refresher course to renew the certification. At the time of the opinion, Bierce was serving as the Police Department’s Commissioner, and the Department had not reported that position to DCJS as requiring certification.

Procedural History

Bierce brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, asserting a procedural due process claim and seeking injunctive relief restoring his certification. In earlier rulings, Judge Seibel dismissed claims against Stephanie Russell and David Mahany for lack of alleged personal involvement, dismissed other requested relief, and denied Bierce’s effort to add a substantive due process claim against Russell and Mahany. The remaining claim against Rosado sought injunctive relief.

Rosado moved to dismiss the remaining case as moot. A moot case is one in which no ongoing dispute remains that a court can meaningfully resolve. The court treated the post-answer jurisdictional motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Parties’ Positions

Rosado argued that changing Bierce’s status from removal for cause to standard resignation gave him the outcome he would have sought through a hearing. She also argued that Bierce’s certification was governed by New York’s four-year limit after an interruption in service, so restoring the certification after that period would give him more than the law allowed.

Bierce argued that changing the status alone did not fully remedy the alleged due process violation. He contended that the removal-for-cause designation invalidated his certification and prevented him from obtaining police work that could have avoided the four-year lapse, making restoration of the certification appropriate.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Bierce had a protected property interest in his basic-training certificate. New York law required a certificate for a permanent police appointment after satisfactory completion of an approved basic-training program, and the certificate could be immediately invalidated for removal for cause or certain probationary removals.

But the court held that the property interest was limited by the duration established in New York law. Because Bierce resigned on December 2, 2019, the four-year interruption period began then. His certificate therefore expired on December 2, 2023. After that expiration, New York law allowed restoration only through satisfactory completion of an approved refresher course within the statutory period.

Judge Seibel rejected restoration of the expired certificate as an available remedy. The court reasoned that reinstatement would expand Bierce’s property interest beyond the limits set by state law. The court also noted that Bierce had not shown that he would have obtained another police position during the four-year period, and that he had not sought a preliminary injunction or otherwise expedited this case before the certification expired. The court further relied on the state and public interest in updated police training after a lengthy interruption in service.

Because DCJS had already changed Bierce’s status to a standard resignation, and because the court found that Bierce would not be entitled to certification reinstatement even if he prevailed on the due process claim, the court held that he had received all relief available to him. His request for injunctive relief was therefore moot and had to be dismissed.

The court also stated that Bierce abandoned his request for declaratory relief by failing to respond to Rosado’s argument seeking its dismissal. That claim was dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted Rosado’s motion to dismiss the case as moot. It dismissed Bierce’s claim for injunctive relief as moot, dismissed the declaratory-relief claim as abandoned, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.