Daugevelo v. County Of Sullivan

Background

Paul Daugevelo and Christopher Glinton alleged that they operate an antique business and were selling antiques at the White Lake Flea Market on July 8, 2018. Sheriff’s Deputy Ryan Fridlich and Detective Sergeant Paul Silvik approached their booth and allegedly said they were there to seize stolen merchandise. The plaintiffs alleged that customers overheard the statement, that the officers questioned and escorted them to police vehicles, and that items including an ark cover were seized. The property was returned on September 5, 2018, after the plaintiffs’ counsel had demanded its return and the plaintiffs had not signed a proposed release.

The plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserted two claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: a reputational-injury claim and a claim alleging deprivation of property without adequate legal procedures. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Materials Considered

The court considered an inventory document because the amended complaint referred to it and relied on it. The court did not consider an audio recording submitted by the defendants. The amended complaint did not refer to the recording, and the court found no indication that the plaintiffs knew of or relied on it when bringing the case. The court also declined to convert the dismissal motion into a motion for summary judgment because discovery was needed.

Reputational-Injury Claim

The plaintiffs clarified that their first claim was a Fourteenth Amendment “stigma-plus” claim, rather than a state-law defamation claim. A stigma-plus claim requires alleged reputational harm together with the deprivation of a tangible interest or property right without adequate legal procedures.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that the plaintiffs adequately alleged reputational harm and defamatory statements. It nevertheless held that the amended complaint did not allege the required “plus” element. The plaintiffs’ allegation that their reputations were permanently harmed was not enough, and the complaint did not provide facts allowing a reasonable inference that the statements caused a tangible injury. The court therefore dismissed the first claim.

Property-Deprivation Claim

The second claim alleged that the defendants seized the plaintiffs’ property, including the ark cover, without probable cause and without adequate due process. The court explained that it first had to identify the property interest and then determine whether the plaintiffs received constitutionally adequate procedures during the deprivation.

Although the allegations were sparse, the court found them sufficient at the dismissal stage. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants temporarily seized their property, held it for approximately two months, and attempted to require them to sign a release before returning it. The court held that these allegations plausibly stated a claim for deprivation of property without due process.

The defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs consented to the temporary seizure depended on the audio recording. Because the court excluded that recording from consideration, and the defendants offered no other argument supporting dismissal of the property claim, the court denied the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of that claim.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity can protect government officials from civil damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that it did not. The defendants raised qualified immunity in their dismissal motion.

The court held that it could not decide the defense based on the amended complaint alone. Without discovery, the facts supporting the defense did not appear clearly on the face of the complaint. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds at that stage.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. It dismissed the plaintiffs’ first claim, allowed the second claim to proceed to discovery, and denied the motion on qualified-immunity grounds. The court directed that an initial pretrial conference be held on January 27, 2021.