Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield

Background

Humberto Rivera, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Connecticut state troopers entered his home in Patterson, New York, while he was sleeping. The officers allegedly questioned him, directed him to remain seated, searched a cabinet for his identification, and stayed in the home for approximately one hour while waiting for New York officers. Rivera also alleged that an officer removed his daughter from the home.

Rivera asserted claims under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process and equal-protection provisions. He also asserted claims under the federal civil-rights statute, Section 1983, as well as state-law claims for trespassing, negligence, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The New Fairfield Defendants and the Connecticut State Trooper Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Fourth Amendment claims

The court concluded that Rivera plausibly alleged that the Connecticut State Trooper Defendants and David Koonitsky unlawfully entered his home. The alleged entry was warrantless, and the court found that the alleged report—that Rivera’s daughter did not want to be at his home and that he had taken her phone—did not, at the pleading stage, establish an objectively reasonable belief that she faced an immediate threat requiring emergency action.

The court also concluded that Rivera plausibly alleged a seizure because the officers allegedly ordered him to remain seated and refused to leave when he demanded that they do so. The court did not find sufficient allegations of a de facto arrest, noting the approximately one-hour duration and the absence of allegations that Rivera was handcuffed or that an officer displayed a gun. But it found that the alleged detention could constitute an investigative stop requiring reasonable suspicion, and that Rivera had plausibly alleged the officers lacked reasonable suspicion. These Fourth Amendment claims against Tharas, Olsowy, King, and Koonitsky may proceed.

Due-process claims

The court found that Rivera plausibly alleged both procedural and substantive due-process violations based on the removal of his daughter. Parents have a protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children. Rivera alleged facts suggesting that the officers lacked a reasonable basis to remove his daughter and that no emergency justified removing her without a hearing or court order. These claims against Tharas, Olsowy, King, and Koonitsky may proceed.

Equal-protection claim

The court dismissed Rivera’s equal-protection claim. Rivera alleged in his opposition that the officers were biased against him as a “Hispanic dad living in a middle class neighborhood,” but he did not identify similarly situated people who were treated better. The court held that these allegations were insufficient to plausibly show discriminatory selective enforcement.

Personal involvement of the town officials

The court dismissed the claims against First Selectman Patricia Del Monaco, Selectman Khris Hall, and Selectman Kim Hansen. Rivera did not allege that these officials were present during, or otherwise personally involved in, the alleged search, seizure, or due-process violations. His allegations that they failed to train or supervise their subordinates were conclusory and did not establish personal involvement under Section 1983.

Claims against the Town and the Office

The court dismissed Rivera’s Section 1983 claims against the Town of New Fairfield and the New Fairfield Resident Trooper’s Office. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality may be liable under Section 1983 only when an official policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. The court found that Rivera alleged only his own experience and offered conclusory assertions about inadequate hiring, training, supervision, and monitoring. He did not plausibly allege a formal policy, a widespread custom, or deliberate indifference by a policymaker.

Qualified immunity

The court declined at this stage to dismiss the constitutional claims against Tharas, Olsowy, King, and Koonitsky on qualified-immunity grounds. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct was lawful. Accepting Rivera’s allegations as true, the court could not conclude that the officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable. The court stated that the issue could be revisited after discovery on a motion for summary judgment.

State-law claims

The court dismissed Rivera’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against the Town and the Office. Although the alleged conduct could plausibly support the constitutional claims, the court found that it was not sufficiently extreme or outrageous under New York law.

The defendants did not move to dismiss Rivera’s state-law claims for trespassing, negligence, and false imprisonment. Those claims against the Town and the Office may proceed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part both motions to dismiss. The following claims may proceed: Rivera’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims against Tharas, Olsowy, King, and Koonitsky; his Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due-process claims against those four defendants; and his state-law claims for trespassing, negligence, and false imprisonment against the Town and the Office. All other claims were dismissed. The Clerk was directed to terminate Del Monaco, Hall, and Hansen as defendants, and the remaining defendants were directed to answer the third amended complaint by October 24, 2023.