Greenland v. The Municipality of Westchester County

Background

Ronald C. Greenland brought the action without a lawyer against the Municipality of Westchester County; Lana Hochheiser; John O’Rourke; Paul Noto; Glenna Lunn; Edward W. Kelch; James Greer; and Mary E. Eustace. He invoked 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, among other provisions. Greenland alleged that Noto, O’Rourke, and Hochheiser, whom he described as state prosecutors, systematically and secretly leaked information about his DNA profile to the press. He also alleged that Hochheiser and O’Rourke discussed his DNA profile with Greer, Kelch, and Eustace, and that some defendants provided unauthorized DNA samples. Greenland characterized the alleged conduct as defamation and asserted a state-created-danger theory. He sought a declaration that the defendants acted in bad faith, damages, and appointment of pro bono counsel.

Request for Appointed Counsel

The court denied Greenland’s renewed request for pro bono counsel. It explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, although a court may appoint counsel for an eligible party. The court found that Greenland had not shown that his claims were likely to have merit. It also found that the case was not sufficiently complex, that the allegations concerned largely public events, and that Greenland had not shown other factors supporting appointment of counsel.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but concluded that the allegations did not plausibly establish a constitutional violation.

The court held that Greenland had not identified a constitutional right prohibiting state prosecutors from discussing evidence in his case with the press. To the extent he claimed that press coverage threatened a fair trial, he supplied no facts about the timing of any press release or whether he had a jury trial. The court also held that discussing his DNA profile among the alleged defendants did not itself establish a constitutional violation. To the extent Greenland invoked the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, the court found that he did not explain when or how that right was denied and noted that the right concerns criminal prosecutions, not statements to the media.

The court rejected Greenland’s claims that the defendants conspired with the media to portray him as a violent offender and illegal immigrant. It explained that defamation is generally a state-law matter rather than a constitutional violation supporting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that a conspiracy claim cannot proceed without an underlying constitutional violation. The court also found that Greenland had not plausibly alleged that the County’s conduct resulted from an official policy or custom, as required for municipal liability under § 1983. His general allegation that the County failed to train employees was insufficient.

The court rejected the state-created-danger theory because that doctrine requires allegations that a state actor affirmatively encouraged third-party violence or aided a private party in subjecting someone to unwarranted physical harm. The court held that negative online comments expressing disdain for Greenland did not constitute the required conduct.

The court dismissed any state-law defamation claim because Greenland did not affirmatively allege that he had filed the required notice of claim. Under the New York law discussed in the opinion, a claim against a municipality or covered public employees generally requires a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim accrues.

The court did not address the defendants’ qualified-immunity or absolute-immunity arguments because it dismissed the claims on other grounds.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He concluded that Greenland’s amended complaint repeated virtually all of the fatal problems in the original complaint and that another amendment would be futile. The court dismissed Greenland’s claims with prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, mail Greenland a copy of the opinion, and close the case.