Harrington v. County Of Suffolk

• Decision Date: 04 June 2010
• Docket Number: Docket No. 09-3911-cv.
• Citation: 607 F.3d 31
• Parties: Thomas HARRINGTON, Ann Marie Harrington, as for and on behalf of Stephen Harrington, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Suffolk County Police Department, PO John Phelan, Det. Joseph Moran, Sgt. Lamb, Det. Pace, Det. Durosky, John Does 1-5, Suffolk County Police Officers and Detectives are sued in their Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

607 F.3d 31

Thomas HARRINGTON, Ann Marie Harrington, as for and on behalf of Stephen Harrington, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Suffolk County Police Department, PO John Phelan, Det. Joseph Moran, Sgt. Lamb, Det. Pace, Det. Durosky, John Does 1-5, Suffolk County Police Officers and Detectives are sued in their Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.^*

Docket No. 09-3911-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: May 20, 2010.

Decided: June 4, 2010.

Scott Michael Mishkin, Islandia, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Arlene S. Zwilling, Assistant County Attorney (Christine Malafi, Suffolk County Attorney, on the brief), Suffolk County Attorney's Office, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CABRANES, KATZMANN, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

The question presented is whether citizens of Suffolk County, New York, have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in adequate police investigations. Plaintiffs-appellants Thomas and Ann Marie Harrington (“plaintiffs”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Leonard D. Wexler Judge) dated August 18, 2009 dismissing their complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs claimed that defendants-appellees (“defendants”) had violated their constitutional rights by failing to conduct an adequate investigation into a traffic accident that resulted in the death of plaintiffs' son.

We hold that the Suffolk County Code does not confer on plaintiffs a constitutionally protected property interest in an adequate police investigation. Although the complaint alleges police conduct that is far from satisfactory, it does not allege misconduct rising to the level of a violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs may have legal remedies under New York state law, and they may, of course, pursue change in the Suffolk County Police Department through the political process. Plaintiffs' complaint, however, fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a tragic car accident occurring on October 11, 2006 in Brookhaven, New York. While driving at approximately 10:50 p.m., plaintiffs' son, Stephen Harrington, was struck head-on by another vehicle, which Herbert Guillaume (“Guillaume”) was driving. Stephen Harrington was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident.

Members of the Suffolk County Police Department, including defendants John Phelan, Stephen Moran, Sergeant Lamb, Detective Pace, Detective Durosky, and other police officers identified in the complaint as “John Does,” responded to the scene of the accident. According to plaintiffs, the investigation that followed was inadequate in a number of respects. First, because of heavy rain, the responding officers allegedly conducted their investigation from a nearby diner rather than thoroughly combing the scene of the accident for evidence. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants, among other things, (1) failed to ascertain whether Guillaume had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident, (2) failed to obtain a toxicology report, (3) failed to indicate in the police report that Guillaume was uninsured, and (4) improperly attributed the accident to weather conditions.

On January 30, 2008 plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit. They brought a federal claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the deprivation of property and liberty interests without due process of law, along with negligence claims under New York law. Specifically, plaintiffs maintained that as a result of the above described conduct they were “deprived of their property interest” in receiving “adequate police services” and a “proper and adequate investigation of the accident.” J.A. 20-21.

In a memorandum and order dated August 17, 2009, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. With respect to plaintiffs' federal claim, the District Court held that plaintiffs “failed to allege a cognizable ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interest in connection with the alleged ‘deliberately indifferent’ and deficient police investigation, as required to state a claim for violation of their due process rights.” Harrington ex rel Harrington v. County of Suffolk, No. CV 08-0433, 2009 WL 2567959, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009). The District Court further held that “even if [it] now recognized such a right under the circumstances alleged, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity, as such right was not clearly established at the time of the individual defendants' alleged conduct.” Id. Finally, the District Court declined, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims and therefore dismissed those claims without prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs timely commenced this appeal.

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), assuming all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint to be true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ---U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir.2009).

Plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred in failing to recognize their property interest in an adequate police investigation. ¹ They contend that such an interest arises under Suffolk County Code § C13-6, which provides as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Police Department to preserve the public peace, prevent crime, detect and arrest offenders, protect the rights of persons and property and enforce all laws and ordinances applicable to the county.” Suffolk County, N.Y., Code § C13-6. In essence, they claim that this provision confers on the victims of crime (or the next of kin of victims) a property interest in a police investigation that conforms with certain minimal standards. We agree with the District Court that § C13-6 does not create a constitutionally protected property interest.

To state a claim for deprivation of property without due process of law, a plaintiff must identify a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Taravella v. Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir.2010); West Farms Assocs. v. State Traffic Comm'n, 951 F.2d 469, 472 (2d Cir.1991). “ ‘To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire’ and ‘more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’ ” Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005) (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). Such entitlements are not created by the Constitution but, “[r]ather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Id. at 756, 125 S.Ct. 2796; accord West Farms, 951 F.2d at 472. Although the substantive interest derives from an independent source such as state law, “ federal constitutional law determines whether that interest rises to the level of a legitimate claim of entitlement protected by the Due Process Clause.” Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at 757, 125 S.Ct. 2796 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court has explained that “a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion,” id. at 756, 125 S.Ct. 2796, and that a “well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with” laws that apparently impose mandatory duties on police see id. at 760, 125 S.Ct. 2796. Accordingly, the Court has declared that “the benefit that a third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its ‘substantive’ manifestations.” Id. at 768, 125 S.Ct. 2796.

An entitlement must also be individual in nature to qualify as a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he hallmark of property ... is an individual entitlement grounded in state law.” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 430, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (emphasis added). Thus, where the “intended beneficiaries” of a particular law “are entirely generalized,” we have held that the law does not create a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See West Farms, 951 F.2d at 472-73 (“[U]niversal benefits are not property interests protected by the Due Process Clause.”).

In light of those principles, we have no trouble concluding that plaintiffs do not have a protected property interest in an investigation into their son's death. First, the duty to investigate criminal acts (or possible criminal acts) almost always involves a significant level of law enforcement discretion. See Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at 760, 125 S.Ct. 2796 (observing that “[i]n each and every state there are longstanding statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police” but that, “for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility,” such statutes “clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to make an arrest” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). That discretion precludes any “legitimate claim of entitlement” to a police investigation. See id. at 756, 125 S.Ct. 2796 (explaining that a discretionary benefit is not a protected entitlement); cf. RRI Realty Corp. v. Inc. Vill. of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911, 918 (2d Cir.1989) (“...