Days v. Police Department

Background

Selwyn Days brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows people to seek damages for constitutional violations committed by state actors, along with state-law claims. The defendants were the Eastchester Police Department, Town of Eastchester, County of Westchester, and individual officers Mario Astarita, George Barletta, Matthew Kiernan, and Christopher Calabrese.

Days alleged that officials built the murder prosecution against him using a false accusation, a coerced confession, fabricated or incomplete information, and evidence that was not properly recorded or disclosed. He alleged that officers threatened him and his family, threatened him with the death penalty, fed him crime-scene information, and failed to record much of the interrogation. He further alleged that the prosecution relied on the resulting confession and statements. After several trials, Days was acquitted at his fifth trial on September 12, 2017, after spending 16 years and 7 months in jail.

The Westchester Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately alleges a legally sufficient claim. The Eastchester Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under the same rule.

Statute of Limitations

The court rejected the defendants’ statute-of-limitations arguments. It applied the rule that claims challenging the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution generally accrue when the prosecution ends in the plaintiff’s favor. Because Days was acquitted on September 12, 2017, the court held that his December 11, 2018 complaint was timely as to his fair-trial, due-process, self-incrimination, malicious-prosecution, and pretrial-detention claims.

Claims Against Calabrese

The court held that Days adequately pleaded his claims against Calabrese at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

For the self-incrimination claim, the court concluded that Days’s allegations that Calabrese watched the interrogation, failed to intervene, and used the recording process to preserve a misleading portion of the confession were sufficient, assuming the alleged coercion occurred. The court stated that officers have a duty to intervene to protect constitutional rights from violations by other officers in their presence.

For the malicious-prosecution and fair-trial claims, the court held that Days plausibly alleged that Calabrese helped create a false account, misled prosecutors, participated in the prosecution, and acted with malice. The court also found the alleged lack of probable cause sufficiently pleaded because the prosecution allegedly relied on an uncorroborated accusation, a confession allegedly produced through coercion, and no independently matching forensic evidence. The court noted that a grand-jury indictment’s usual presumption of probable cause can be overcome when the indictment is allegedly based on fabricated evidence.

For the claim concerning detention without probable cause, the court held that Days adequately alleged that the indictment and other legal process were tainted by fabricated evidence and therefore did not establish probable cause for his detention.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from damages when they did not violate a clearly established right or when their conduct was objectively reasonable. The court rejected Calabrese’s qualified-immunity defense at the pleading stage. It held that the rights involved—including the rights against coerced self-incrimination, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, and detention without probable cause—were clearly established. The court also concluded that the complaint alleged conduct that was objectively unreasonable. It stated that qualified immunity usually depends on the facts and is generally better addressed at summary judgment rather than on a motion to dismiss.

Claim Against Westchester County

The court dismissed the § 1983 claim against Westchester County because the amended complaint referred to the County only once in the municipal-liability claim, and Days clarified in his opposition that he was not asserting a § 1983 claim against the County. The court also dismissed with prejudice the claim for punitive damages against Westchester County because municipalities cannot be liable for punitive damages under § 1983.

The court did not foreclose punitive damages against Calabrese. It held that Days had alleged reckless or deliberately indifferent conduct and that the issue should be decided on a fuller record at summary judgment or trial.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court declined to dismiss Days’s state-law claims for malicious prosecution, negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and discipline, and violations of the New York State Constitution. Because federal claims remained, the court could retain supplemental jurisdiction over those related state-law claims.

The court granted the Westchester Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It denied the Eastchester Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Days’s § 1983 claim and punitive-damages claim against Westchester County were dismissed with prejudice; all other claims remained. The Westchester Defendants were directed to answer the amended complaint by November 9, 2020.