Shepler v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:17-cv-10254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Shepler v. Collura, Judge Ramos granted Collura’s motion, dismissing federal claims and state claims without prejudice.
Matthew Stephen Shepler’s federal civil-rights claims were dismissed, and his New York emotional-distress claims were dismissed without prejudice. Michael Collura prevailed on the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Shepler v. Collura, Matthew Stephen Shepler, representing himself, sued New York City police detective Michael Collura under a federal civil-rights law. Shepler alleged that Collura falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted him after accusations that he stalked and harassed Congressperson Carolyn Maloney.
Collura argued that Shepler’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct established probable cause for the arrest and prevented his federal claims. Shepler also asserted retaliation, excessive-bail, and New York emotional-distress claims.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Collura’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all of Shepler’s federal claims and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice because it declined to continue hearing them.
The detailed version
- Shepler v. City of New York · No. 1:17-cv-10254
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
Matthew Stephen Shepler, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Michael Collura, an NYPD detective, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. Shepler alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, and excessive bail. He also appeared to assert New York claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The criminal complaint charged Shepler with two counts of fourth-degree stalking and one count of second-degree harassment. The complaint was based on reports from Congressperson Carolyn Maloney and her staff, as well as Collura’s contact with Shepler and warning that he should stop communicating with Maloney. Shepler was later arrested and charged. He pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of disorderly conduct and received a conditional discharge requiring five months of treatment at a mental-health facility. A protective order also barred him from contacting Maloney.
Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
The court evaluated Collura’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but it did not have to accept legal conclusions or unsupported assertions. Because Shepler represented himself, the court read his complaint liberally, while still requiring facts supporting a plausible claim.
False-Arrest Claim
The court dismissed Shepler’s § 1983 false-arrest claim. A valid conviction, including a guilty plea to a lesser offense, establishes probable cause for the arrest and bars a false-arrest claim. The court therefore did not need to decide whether there was probable cause for every original charge against Shepler.
Malicious-Prosecution Claim
The court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim because Shepler could not show that the criminal case ended in his favor. The case ended with his guilty plea and a protective order, so the required favorable termination was absent. The court also rejected Shepler’s arguments concerning his confinement and the criminal complaint’s failure to mention a photograph and medallion.
Other Federal Claims
The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim because probable cause for the arrest defeats a retaliation claim based on an allegedly retaliatory arrest.
The court also dismissed the excessive-bail claim. Shepler had raised that claim for the first time in his opposition papers rather than properly pleading it in the amended complaint. The court stated that, even if the claim had been properly pleaded, it would fail because the claim was moot after his conviction and because Shepler did not allege that Collura played a role in setting the bail amount.
State-Law Claims and Disposition
After dismissing all federal claims at an early stage, the court declined to continue exercising jurisdiction over Shepler’s state-law emotional-distress claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
The court granted Collura’s motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.