Harasz v. Katz
| Decision Date | 03 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | 3:15–cv–1528 |
| Citation | 239 F.Supp.3d 461 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | George S. HARASZ, and Douglas A. Wirth, Plaintiffs, v. Joette KATZ, Elizabeth Ferreira, Town of Glastonbury, James A. Kennedy, and William Trantalis, Defendants. |
Sally A. Roberts, Law Office of Sally A. Roberts, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs.
John Essex Tucker, Attorney General's Office, Katherine E. Rule, Thomas R. Gerarde, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs commenced this civil rights action in Connecticut Superior Court. Defendants removed the case to this Court. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 stems from Plaintiffs' claims that their rights conferred by the United States Constitution were violated by Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants acted under color of state law, giving rise to this Court's original subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs also allege state law claims, which fall within this Court's pendent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
An Amended Complaint [Doc. 33] (sometimes hereinafter "AC") is the operative pleading. All Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs resist those motions. This Ruling resolves them.
During the pertinent times, Plaintiffs George S. Harasz and Douglas Wirth were citizens of the United States and the State of Connecticut. They resided together in the Town of Glastonbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs advised the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF") that they were willing to take in foster children for adoption, providing that none had past sex abuse issues. Over the years, DCF was responsive to Plaintiffs' offer. Prior to 2011, Harasz and Wirth adopted nine children, who were born during the years 1990 though 2006.
In November 2011, Harasz and Wirth were arrested by the State of Connecticut authorities on charges of misconduct with respect to some of the adopted children in their care. Specifically, the Plaintiffs were charged, inter alia , with sexual assault, cruelty to persons, and risk of injury to a minor. Plaintiffs denied all charges. In September 2014, following a bench trial before a state court judge, Wirth was found not guilty of all charges against him. In October 2014, Harasz moved successfully for the dismissal of all charges against him. Plaintiffs' state court exonerations on these charges led directly to the federal constitutional and state law claims they allege in the present action in this Court.
Defendant Joette Katz is the Commissioner of the Connecticut DCF, having assumed that position in February 2011. Defendant Elizabeth Ferreira was employed as a DCF social worker, assigned to its Manchester, Connecticut office.
Defendant Town of Galstonbury, Connecticut is a municipality which operates, directs and controls the Glastonbury Police Department. Defendants James Kennedy and William Trantalis are Glastonbury police officers.
The Amended Complaint alleges eight counts, which may be summarized thus:
Count One: against Katz pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon failure to train and supervise (violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Count Two: against Kennedy and Trantalis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon malicious prosecution (violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Count Three: against Katz pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon malicious prosecution (violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments).
Count Four: against Ferreira, Kennedy and Trantalis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon fabrication of evidence (violation of constitutional due process).
The remaining counts purport to assert state law claims similar to, if not exactly duplicative of, the first four federal claims.
Count Five: against Kennedy and Trantalis based upon malicious prosecution (violations of state law and constitution).
Count Six: against Katz based upon malicious prosecution (violation of state tort law).
Count Seven: against Ferreira, Kennedy and Trantalis based upon fabrication of evidence (violation of constitutional due process).
Count Eight: against Town of Glastonbury claiming that the Town must indemnify Kennedy and Trantalis pursuant to the applicable state statute.
The individual Defendants are sued in their individual capacities only. Appearing through different counsel, the DCF Defendants and the Glastonbury Defendants move to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs resist the motions.
The factual recitations appearing in this Part are derived principally from the Amended Complaint. However, the manner in which that document is drafted requires this preliminary consideration of the standard of review the Court must apply on these defense motions to dismiss.
Defendants base their motions to dismiss upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), relief to which they are entitled if Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint "fail[s] to state a claim upon which can be granted." In deciding that motion, the district judge looks to what the complaint says (or "states ") is the plaintiff's claim. Evidence does not enter into Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. That comes later, during Rule 56 summary judgment practice, after completion of discovery.
The trial judge's principal function on a defense motion to dismiss is to read the complaint and decide if it states a viable claim under governing law: a reading subject to clearly defined instructions laid down by appellate authority. The district judge must accept as true "all of the factual allegations of the complaint." Hill v. Curcione , 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), or to "conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions," which "will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss." Smith v. Local 819 I.B.T. Pension Plan , 291 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial judge owes deference to well-pleaded allegations of fact, but disregards conclusions and arguments, no matter how the pleader captions them. The Supreme Court made that limitation explicit in Iqbal : Justice Kennedy's opinion gives district judges practical advice: "[A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the presumption of truth." 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The Court added: "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. Only "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations" should a court "assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
One would be hard pressed to find a well-pleaded factual allegation in this passage. Indeed, the last quoted sentence abandons any effort to plead them. The reader is told that someone, seemingly not present during this incident, feels that the events as described are "appalling." Whether Harasz, Wirth, or their attorney, or all of them were "appalled" is not clear, but it is of no conceivable consequence.
In portions such as these, the "Amended Complaint" is more a polemic than a pleading. For purposes of these motions to dismiss, I accept the factual allegations in the complaint and entirely disregard the polemic. That task has required a considerable effort at editing. The "Allegations of Fact" that follow in this Ruling are intended to reflect, for the most part, the mandated distinction between pleading and polemic. The Court may not have succeeded entirely in separating wheat from chaff. At the end of the day, the reader should disregard any chaff that survived the process, as will the Court in making its Ruling.
The "Allegations of Fact" in this Part are adopted from the numbered paragraphs in the "Statement of Facts" in the Amended Complaint. Quotation marks in what follows indicate quotations from the Amended Complaint.
Over a number of years, Harasz and Wirth adopted nine children: John Doe # 1, born in 1990; John Doe # 2, born in 1992; John Doe # 3, born in 1993; John Doe # 4, born in 1995; John Doe # 5, born in 2000; John Doe # 6, born in 2003; John Doe # 7, born in 2000; John Doe # 8, born in 2004; and John Doe # 9, born in 2006.
Plaintiffs allege that one of their adoptive children, Doe # 4, suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and Reactive Attachment Disorder ("RAD"), among other diagnoses. RAD is a disorder associated with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grim v. Balt. Police Dep't
...n.3 (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2017) (Plaintiff cannot state a Monell claim against an officer in his individual capacity."); Harasz v. Katz, 239 F. Supp. 3d 461, 505 (D. Conn. 2017) ("Monell does not apply to state officials or individuals sued in their individual capacity.'" (citation omitted)); MA......
-
United States v. Robertson
...... , Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), but it also protects against seizures as well as against any other ......
-
Harasz v. Katz
...PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:By prior Ruling [Doc. 46] reported at 239 F.Supp.3d 461 (D. Conn. 2017) (" Conversion Ruling"), familiarity with which is assumed, the Court granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, and ......
-
Birch v. Town of New Milford
...... years consistently condemned it in strong and uncompromising. terms.” Harasz v. Katz , 239 F.Supp.3d 461, 489. (D. Conn. 2017). . . Separate. and apart from the remedies available ......