Dolcine v. Hanson
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:17-cv-04835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In Dolcine v. Hanson, Judge Caproni granted defendants’ summary judgment, ruling Dolcine’s due-process claim failed.
Ricardo Dolcine’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against Richard Hanson and Kerin Quinn was resolved against Dolcine; the case was closed.
What happened
In Dolcine v. Hanson, Ricardo Dolcine claimed that fellow New York City police officers Richard Hanson and Kerin Quinn made false statements accusing him of disobeying orders during an off-duty traffic stop. He argued that the statements harmed his reputation and, together with an 11-day unpaid suspension, violated his constitutional right to fair procedures.
The court ruled that the accusation was not sufficiently damaging to count as constitutional stigma, the suspension was not a sufficient additional harm, and Hanson and Quinn lacked authority over Dolcine’s suspension or the procedures he received. The court also found that Dolcine received adequate notice and opportunities to respond, and that he cleared himself of the charge of disobeying a lawful order at his disciplinary hearing.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and directed the clerk to close the case. The court did not decide whether the defendants had absolute or qualified immunity.
The detailed version
- Dolcine v. Hanson · No. 1:17-cv-04835
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 12, 2021
Background
Ricardo Dolcine, an NYPD officer, sued Richard Hanson and Kerin Quinn over statements made after a March 4, 2016 traffic stop. The caption identifies the second defendant as Police Officer Kerin Donahue, but the opinion states that she was erroneously sued under that name and refers to her as Kerin Quinn.
Dolcine was off duty and driving his personal vehicle when Hanson and Quinn stopped him for making an illegal turn. After Dolcine exited his vehicle to ask for the return of his NYPD identification, Quinn ordered him to return to his vehicle. The parties disputed whether Dolcine immediately complied and whether he had yelled at the officers. The officers later stated during NYPD investigative interviews that Dolcine had not immediately obeyed their instructions.
The NYPD suspended Dolcine for 11 days without pay while disciplinary charges were pending. He was later charged with being discourteous and with failing to comply with the officers’ direction during the traffic stop. After a departmental hearing at which Dolcine had a lawyer, presented evidence, testified, called witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses, he was found guilty of discourtesy but not guilty of failing to obey a lawful order. The NYPD Commissioner adopted those findings and approved the punishment, including the loss of the 11 days he had served on suspension.
After earlier rulings and abandoned claims, the only remaining claim was Dolcine’s Fourteenth Amendment “stigma-plus” due-process claim against Hanson and Quinn. That type of claim alleges that damaging statements about a person’s reputation were combined with a significant government-imposed loss, without adequate procedures.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could change the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.
The court held that Dolcine could not establish the required “stigma” element. He narrowed his claim to the officers’ statements that he had disobeyed their lawful orders. Although that accusation could be proven true or false, the court held that, in this context, it described unruly behavior or poor judgment during a single off-duty incident rather than attacking Dolcine’s professional competence, integrity, or ability to work as a police officer. The court also found that the accusation was much less serious than accusations of criminal conduct or professional misconduct that had supported similar claims in other cases.
The court held that Dolcine also could not establish the required “plus” element. His only remaining basis for that element was the 11-day unpaid suspension. The court concluded that an unpaid suspension of that length was legally insufficient to constitute the required significant loss of a protected right or status. The court had already ruled that Dolcine could not rely on reassignment, lost overtime, modified duty, or lost promotion opportunities for this element.
The court identified two additional reasons the claim failed. First, Hanson and Quinn did not impose the suspension and had no authority to control the procedures before or after it. Second, Dolcine received adequate process: he received notice, participated in an investigative interview and disciplinary hearing, and had the opportunity to present and challenge evidence. The court emphasized that he prevailed on the charge that he had disobeyed a lawful order, thereby clearing his name on the charge underlying his claim.
Immunity and Disposition
The defendants argued that absolute immunity protected statements made during the NYPD interviews and disciplinary hearing, and the parties also addressed qualified immunity. The court declined to decide those immunity questions because the claim failed on the central due-process requirements regardless of immunity.
The court’s final disposition was: “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.” The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.