DeJesus-Vasquez v. Bethencourt

Background

Egberto DeJesus-Vasquez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning property seized after his November 15, 2016 arrest. He alleged that the City of Middletown Police Department seized three vehicles and personal property, and that a state criminal plea agreement required the property to be returned. Some property was returned through Hayes, whom DeJesus-Vasquez designated as his proxy, but he alleged that three vehicles, three cellphones, and his passport were not returned.

DeJesus-Vasquez alleged that two vehicles were held by Hollywood Towing and Recovery, where Hayes was told that fees of between $3,000 and $4,000 were due for each vehicle. He further alleged that the vehicles were later sold at auction. An Orange County court granted his request for the return of the cellphones and passport to the extent they remained in police possession, but denied the request concerning the vehicles because the police department denied possessing them.

Rulings on the Motions

The Middletown Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court granted the motion because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Chief of Police Ramon Bethencourt, Jr., or Commissioners Gene T. Vignola, Shawn Sullivan, Deborah Mills, and J. Miguel Rodrigues personally participated in the alleged deprivation. The court explained that holding a supervisory position alone does not establish liability under § 1983.

The court also granted the motion filed by District Attorney David M. Hoovler and Assistant District Attorney Robert H. Middlemiss. Claims against them in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state officials from damages suits in federal court. Claims against them in their individual capacities were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity because Middlemiss’s alleged conduct—participating in court proceedings concerning the return of property—was within prosecutorial duties. The court did not address the district-attorney defendants’ arguments about the merits of the § 1983 claims because immunity resolved those claims.

The court dismissed any state-law claims because DeJesus-Vasquez did not allege that he filed a notice of claim, which New York law requires before bringing certain claims against municipalities and their officers. The court did not address the district-attorney defendants’ statute-of-limitations argument.

Hollywood Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against Ryan Neijer and the John Doe defendants associated with Hollywood Towing and Recovery even though they had not been served. It found that the complaint alleged only that they demanded fees and later sold the vehicles, without alleging facts showing that they were state actors or that their conduct had a sufficient connection to the state. Section 1983 generally requires conduct under color of state law.

Disposition

Judge Karas granted the Middletown Defendants’ and district-attorney defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the claims against the Hollywood Defendants. The opinion states that all dismissals were without prejudice because this was the first adjudication of DeJesus-Vasquez’s claims. It allowed him 30 days to file an amended complaint containing all claims, defendants, and factual allegations he wanted the court to consider. The court stated that failure to file a timely amended complaint could result in dismissal with prejudice.