Griffith v. Clarkstown Police Dept.

Background

Brandon Griffith, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court understood his complaint to assert false arrest, an unlawful strip search, and a claim that the Town of Clarkstown was responsible because of an official policy or practice. The defendants who moved to dismiss were Clarkstown Police Officer Papenmeyer, Sergeant Christian Cortelli, and the Town.

On May 9, 2018, Papenmeyer responded to a medical emergency at a gas station. He found Griffith near an unresponsive woman and a vehicle reported stolen in Vermont, with a hypodermic needle visible inside. Police learned that Griffith was on parole, and a parole officer issued a warrant stating that he had violated parole restrictions. Police transferred Griffith to the Rockland County Jail. Griffith later pleaded guilty to violating parole. He also alleged that someone subjected him to an illegal strip search and that Cortelli made a racial slur after Griffith complained about the arrest and referred to his mental-health history.

Court’s Analysis

The court first addressed whether the complaint alleged each defendant’s personal involvement. It held that the complaint did not provide facts showing Cortelli’s involvement in the arrest or search beyond a conclusory statement. It also held that Griffith did not identify who performed the alleged strip search. The court therefore dismissed any claim against Cortelli and the strip-search claim without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. The court separately noted that name-calling alone is not a constitutional violation.

As to false arrest, the court divided the claim into the detention at the gas station and the later detention under the parole warrant. For the gas-station detention, the court held that the circumstances—including Griffith’s presence with a person found next to a stolen vehicle, the visible needle, and information connecting the woman to the vehicle—supported probable cause to arrest. It dismissed that portion of the false-arrest claim with prejudice.

For the parole-related detention, the court held that the parole warrant made the arrest privileged. It also concluded that Griffith’s guilty plea to violating parole independently supported the same result. The court dismissed that portion of the false-arrest claim with prejudice as well.

The court understood the claim against the Town as a municipal-policy claim. Such a claim requires an underlying constitutional or statutory violation caused by an official municipal policy. Because the court found that Griffith had not pleaded an underlying constitutional violation, it dismissed the municipal-policy claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The false-arrest claim was dismissed with prejudice, while the strip-search and municipal-policy claims were dismissed without prejudice. Griffith was allowed thirty days to file an amended complaint addressing only the pleading deficiencies identified in the opinion. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint within that period would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. It also denied fee-free appellate status after certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.