Dantzig v. Scarpino

Background

Paul Dantzig, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the County of Westchester, Anthony Scarpino, and George Latimer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted a malicious-prosecution claim arising from his arrest and prosecution between November 3, 2018, and August 8, 2019. The complaint alleged that Dantzig was arrested after an incident at a hospital, involuntarily hospitalized for five days based on allegedly false statements about suicidal or homicidal behavior, and later prosecuted for harassment. The prosecution ended with Dantzig being “found innocent of all charges,” which the court understood as presumably meaning that a jury returned a not-guilty verdict.

The complaint alleged that Scarpino reviewed evidence, approved or pursued the prosecution, participated in charging decisions, and used certain medical records as potential trial exhibits. It did not allege facts describing any policy or practice by Westchester County, and it named Latimer in the caption without making substantive allegations about his personal involvement. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), for insufficient service of process, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings

Service on Latimer in his individual capacity. The court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against Latimer in his individual capacity for insufficient service of process. Although the process server delivered the summons and complaint to Donna Dixon at Latimer’s alleged workplace and mailed the papers to the same address, New York law also required proof of service to be filed with the clerk of the court identified in the summons within 20 days. The court found that proof of service had not been filed with the designated New York state court. The claims against Latimer in his individual capacity were dismissed without prejudice.

Scarpino in his official capacity. The court agreed that the malicious-prosecution claims against Scarpino in his official capacity were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court explained that the allegations concerned Scarpino’s activities as a district attorney and therefore treated him as acting for the state in that capacity.

Scarpino in his individual capacity. The court also agreed that absolute prosecutorial immunity barred the claims against Scarpino in his individual capacity. Absolute immunity protects prosecutors from civil liability for conduct closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court concluded that the alleged conduct—reviewing and approving evidence, making charging decisions, seeking a court proceeding involving a diversion program, dismissing charges, filing a superseding charge, and pursuing the prosecution—was prosecutorial rather than administrative or investigative. The claim against Scarpino was dismissed without prejudice.

Westchester County. The court dismissed any municipal-policy claim against Westchester County. A claim of this type, commonly called a Monell claim, requires facts showing that a municipal policy or longstanding custom caused the constitutional injury. The court found that Dantzig identified no County policy, custom, or practice and therefore did not plead a plausible claim. The claim against the County was dismissed without prejudice.

Latimer. Apart from the service problem concerning Latimer’s individual capacity, the court dismissed the claims against Latimer because the complaint contained no allegations showing his personal involvement in the events. A government official cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because that official supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated a person’s rights. The claims against Latimer were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Disposition and amendment. The court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss and dismissed Dantzig’s claims without prejudice. It granted Dantzig leave to amend by April 30, 2021, including to assert possible claims concerning unreasonable seizure, due process, or unlawful imprisonment against additional parties. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Dantzig did not timely amend or seek an extension and could not show good cause, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice and the case would be closed.