Iosilevich v. Walmart Inc.

Background

Ilya Feliksovich Iosilevich, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Walmart Inc., Walmart employee Joseph Negron, New York State Police Superintendent Kevin Bruen, New York State Police Trooper John Reicherter, and Westchester County Government. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also asserted state-law claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Iosilevich alleged that, after he used a scanner at a Walmart self-checkout, a Walmart employee noticed that an item was not listed on his receipt. Negron allegedly escorted Iosilevich and his wife to a security office, and the New York State Police were called after Iosilevich declined to provide identification or sign paperwork. Iosilevich and his wife were arrested. He alleged that the petit-larceny charge was later dismissed through an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.” He sought $270,000 in damages and an order requiring the County to change the disposition of the criminal case.

Three motions were before the court: the Walmart defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process and failure to state a claim; the State Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; and the County moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Official-Capacity Claims

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Iosilevich’s claims for damages against Bruen and Reicherter in their official capacities. The court treated Iosilevich’s references to Reicherter’s “employment capacities” as references to official capacities. It dismissed those official-capacity claims under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court then considered the claims against Bruen and Reicherter in their personal capacities under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.

Service of Process

The Walmart defendants argued that the claims against them should be dismissed because service of process did not comply with Rule 4. The court rejected that argument. Because Iosilevich was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court held that the United States Marshals Service—not Iosilevich—was primarily responsible for service. The court found good cause for any failure to complete service and denied dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5).

Section 1983 Claims Against the County

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Westchester County. A municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom causes the constitutional injury. The court found that the complaint did not identify a County policy or custom, allege similar incidents involving other people, or plead a direct connection between any County policy and Iosilevich’s alleged injuries.

Section 1983 Claims Against Walmart and Negron

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Walmart and Negron because the complaint did not plausibly allege that they acted under color of state law. A private party may be treated as a state actor in limited circumstances, including when the state coerces the party, delegates a public function, or jointly participates in the challenged conduct. The court found that allegations that Walmart and the police knew each other, that the police station was near the store, and that the police did not review surveillance video were insufficient. The materials attached to the complaint indicated that the police relied on more than Negron’s request alone, so the complaint did not support an inference of joint action or a failure to conduct an independent investigation.

Claims Against Bruen and Reicherter

The court dismissed the personal-capacity § 1983 claims against Bruen because the complaint did not allege his direct or personal involvement in the arrest or prosecution. Naming Bruen as the New York State Police Superintendent was not enough to establish liability for Reicherter’s alleged conduct.

The court also dismissed the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Reicherter. For false arrest, the court held that Negron’s supporting deposition gave Reicherter probable cause to believe that Iosilevich had committed petit larceny. Probable cause is an absolute defense to a false-arrest claim under New York law. The court further held that probable cause defeated the malicious-prosecution claim and that the complaint did not allege that Reicherter improperly initiated the criminal proceeding by distorting the process, falsifying or withholding evidence, or acting in bad faith.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It found no complete diversity because the complaint alleged that Iosilevich and several defendants were citizens of New York. The court therefore dismissed the state-law claims.

The court denied Iosilevich’s request for leave to amend. It noted that he had previously been given time to file an amended complaint but did not meet the extended deadline. The court concluded that the defects were substantive and that further pleading would be futile.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5), and denied leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the ability to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.