Carzoglio v. Abrams
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-04198
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Carzoglio v. Abrams, Judge Halpern granted Westchester County’s dismissal motion because Carzoglio did not plausibly allege a county policy or custom.
Angelo Carzoglio’s claim against Westchester County was dismissed, and the County was terminated as a defendant. The opinion states that his separate Fourth Amendment claim against Thomas Abrams remained pending.
What happened
In Carzoglio v. Abrams, Angelo Carzoglio alleged that a jail supervisor ordered searches that violated his constitutional rights. He also sued Westchester County, which was treated as the proper defendant instead of the county’s corrections department.
The court ruled that Carzoglio had not plausibly alleged that a county policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. His claim relied only on the County employing the supervisor and possibly having to pay a judgment or settlement, which was not enough for county liability.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Westchester County’s motion to dismiss and terminated the County as a defendant. The opinion states that discovery on Carzoglio’s separate Fourth Amendment claim against Thomas Abrams was ongoing.
The detailed version
- Carzoglio v. Abrams · No. 7:18-cv-04198
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background
Angelo Carzoglio, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued over events at the Westchester County Jail in 2017. He alleged that Thomas Abrams, described as a senior jail guard supervisor, ordered correctional officers to pat frisk and strip search him and tamper with his legal materials. Carzoglio alleged that a later strip search was conducted in retaliation for a grievance and involved verbal harassment. His original complaint also raised claims about food and commissary products.
An earlier order dismissed all claims except Carzoglio’s Fourth Amendment claim against Abrams and allowed him to amend his complaint. Carzoglio then filed a First Amended Complaint naming Abrams and Westchester County. The County moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
The opinion explains that the court treated Carzoglio’s claim against the County as a municipal-liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under that doctrine, commonly called a Monell claim, a county is not automatically liable for an employee’s alleged misconduct merely because it employs that person. The plaintiff must plausibly allege that an official county policy or custom caused the violation of constitutional rights.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the amended complaint alleged only that the County employed Abrams. It did not allege facts supporting an inference that the County had an official policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court also rejected Carzoglio’s argument that the County’s possible obligation to indemnify Abrams—that is, to pay certain amounts on his behalf—could support liability. The court said indemnification and municipal liability are separate issues.
The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint did not adequately plead a municipal-liability claim against Westchester County. The opinion does not decide the merits of Carzoglio’s separate Fourth Amendment claim against Abrams; it states that discovery on that claim was ongoing.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the County’s motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk to substitute Westchester County for the Westchester County Department of Corrections, terminate the pending motion, and terminate Westchester County as a defendant. The court also directed that an initial pretrial conference notice be issued.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.