Green v. The City of Mount Vernon

Background

Donato Green sued the City of Mount Vernon and numerous Mount Vernon police officials and officers, as well as Anthony Scarpino, asserting federal claims arising from arrests on June 16, 2020, and July 27, 2020. His First Amended Complaint alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution concerning the June 16 arrest; excessive force concerning both arrests; deprivation of the right to a fair trial concerning the July 27 arrest; supervisory liability claims against Glenn Scott, Shawn Harris, and Richton Ziadie; and a municipal-liability claim against the City of Mount Vernon and Scarpino.

In responding to the motions, Green withdrew the malicious-prosecution claim. He also sought leave to amend a second time to name the County as a defendant for a municipal-liability claim and to substitute Jorge A. Monge for the John Doe associated with the fair-trial claim.

Scarpino’s Motion and Proposed County Amendment

The court granted Scarpino’s motion to dismiss. The opinion states that Green conceded Scarpino could not be sued individually on a municipal-liability claim and that suits against county district attorneys in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court therefore dismissed the fifth cause of action—the only claim against Scarpino—with prejudice and directed that Scarpino be terminated as a defendant. It did not decide the parties’ arguments about absolute immunity.

The court denied leave to amend to add the County because the proposed municipal-liability claim was futile. Under the municipal-liability framework recognized in Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality may be liable under Section 1983 only when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. The court held that Green’s allegations that Scarpino failed to conduct a serious investigation did not state a constitutional violation because, under the authorities discussed in the opinion, a person has no constitutionally protected right to an investigation by government officials into alleged wrongdoing by other officials. Without an underlying constitutional violation, the proposed municipal-liability claim could not proceed.

The court also stated that a municipal-liability claim based on conduct by Mount Vernon police officers would fail because Green did not allege that those officers were employees or agents of the County. Because the proposed County amendment was futile, the court did not decide whether it was time-barred or whether it related back to the original complaint.

Proposed Fair-Trial Amendment

The court denied leave to amend to substitute Monge for the John Doe in the fair-trial claim. It held that a fair-trial claim based on fabricated evidence does not accrue until the related criminal prosecution ends in the plaintiff’s favor. Because the criminal proceedings connected to the July 27 arrest had not yet ended in Green’s favor, the claim itself was premature and the proposed amendment was also premature and futile.

Stay and Disposition

Green and the Mount Vernon Defendants consented to a stay while the criminal proceedings related to the July 27 arrest were resolved. The court granted the Mount Vernon Defendants’ motion to stay and stayed all proceedings pending further order. It explained that the outcome of those proceedings could affect whether Green had a fair-trial claim and that continuing discovery on only part of the case would be inefficient.

In its conclusion, the court denied Green’s requests for leave to amend, dismissed the claim against Scarpino, dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim as withdrawn, and granted the Mount Vernon Defendants’ motion to stay on consent. The parties were directed to provide a joint status update in 90 days and every 90 days thereafter during the stay. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and Scarpino as a defendant.