Sauer v. Town of Cornwall

Background

Martin J. Sauer sued the Town of Cornwall and its Police Chief, Todd Hazard, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing people to seek damages for violations of federal constitutional rights by officials acting under state law. He also asserted similar claims under the New York Constitution. Sauer alleged that he had sold or given away sweet corn and other produce along Route 32 for more than 20 years. He had a lifetime New York State peddler’s license and had received annual Town of Cornwall peddler’s licenses from 2011 through 2017.

In 2018, the Town denied Sauer’s application for another town license. Sauer then parked along Route 32 and gave away his produce. On July 21, 2018, Chief Hazard arrested him for unlicensed peddling under the town code, even though Sauer told Hazard that he was giving away the produce and had a state license. Sauer alleged that the town code exempted people with valid state licenses from the local license requirement. Hazard also arranged for Sauer’s vehicle to be towed, and Sauer alleged that the towing damaged the vehicle and cost him $400 to recover it. The criminal charges were later dismissed in the interest of justice, with Sauer’s state license acknowledged.

Sauer initially asserted five causes of action, including substantive due process, unlawful arrest and seizure, equal protection, and deprivation of property without due process. He withdrew the substantive-due-process claim. The defendants then moved to dismiss the remaining claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings on the Claims

Claims against the Town and official-capacity claims. The court dismissed the claims against the Town under the municipal-liability rule commonly called Monell. That rule requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that a municipal policy, custom, widespread practice, or qualifying failure to train or supervise caused the constitutional violation. The court concluded that Sauer alleged only individual conduct by Chief Hazard and other isolated events, not a town policy, custom, or widespread practice. The court also dismissed the claims against Chief Hazard in his official capacity because those claims likewise required a municipal policy or custom.

False arrest and imprisonment. The court held that Sauer adequately alleged a Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest and false imprisonment against Chief Hazard in his individual capacity. The court reasoned that Sauer alleged all the elements of an unjustified confinement and that the complaint did not establish probable cause at the motion-to-dismiss stage. According to the allegations, Hazard knew that Sauer possessed a state peddler’s license, and the town code exempted state-licensed individuals from the local license requirement. The court also treated the distinction between selling and giving away the corn as irrelevant to its analysis.

Equal protection. The court granted the motion to dismiss Sauer’s equal-protection claim and dismissed it without prejudice. Sauer did not adequately allege that the defendants treated him differently from similarly situated people or that the alleged selective treatment was motivated by discriminatory or improper intent. The court also rejected, as inadequately pleaded, Sauer’s alternative theory that he was treated as an isolated “class of one,” because he did not identify comparators who were extremely similar to him.

Procedural due process. The court granted the motion to dismiss Sauer’s procedural-due-process claim and dismissed it without prejudice. The complaint did not clearly identify whether the claimed property deprivation involved denial of the town license, seizure of the vehicle, or the state license. More importantly, Sauer did not allege that the procedures available to challenge the license denial or vehicle seizure were absent or inadequate. The court specifically noted that he could have challenged the license denial through a New York state court proceeding under Article 78.

Qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages claims unless their conduct violated a clearly established right. The court held that Chief Hazard was not entitled to qualified immunity on the alleged unlawful-arrest claim. Accepting the complaint’s allegations, the court concluded that Hazard lacked both actual probable cause and arguable probable cause because he allegedly knew of Sauer’s state license and the local exemption.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The claims dismissed without prejudice could be repleaded. Sauer had until October 24, 2022, to file an amended complaint; if he did not timely do so, those claims would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The provided opinion text does not separately state a disposition for each New York constitutional claim.