McDonough v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1:15-cv-01505 (MAD/DJS) |
| Parties | EDWARD G. MCDONOUGH, Plaintiff, v. YOUEL C. SMITH, III, individually and as Special District Attorney for the County of Rensselaer, New York a/k/a TREY SMITH; KEVIN B. MCGRATH; WILLIAM A. MCINERNEY; JOHN J. OGDEN; ANTHONY J. RENNA; THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, NEW YORK, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
PREMO LAW FIRM
20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
Albany, New York 12211
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NAPIERSKI, VANDENBURGH LAW FIRM
296 Washington Avenue Extension
Albany, New York 12203
Attorneys for Defendant Smith
ANDERSON, MOSCHETTI LAW FIRM
26 Century Hill Drive
Suite 206
Latham, New York 12110
Attorneys for Defendant McGrath
OFFICE OF JAMES E. LONG
668 Central Avenue
Albany, New York 12206
Attorneys for Defendant McInerney
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE - ALBANY
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendant Ogden
ANTHONY J. RENNA
102 Sherman Avenue
Troy, New York 12180
Defendant, pro se
BAILEY, KELLEHER LAW FIRM
5 Pine West Plaza
Suite 507
Washington Avenue Extension
Albany, New York 12205
Attorneys for Defendant County of Rensselaer
RENSSELAER COUNTY ATTORNEY
BRIAN D. PREMO, ESQ.
THOMAS J. O'CONNOR, ESQ.
DIANE LUFKIN SCHILLING, ESQ.
PETER J. MOSCHETTI, JR., ESQ.
JAMES E. LONG, ESQ.
WILLIAM A. SCOTT, AAG.
JOHN W. BAILEY, ESQ.
STEPHEN A. PECHENIK, ESQ.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Edward G. McDonough ("Plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a 174 page, 1220 paragraph complaint on December 18, 2015, asserting three causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against eleven named Defendants. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated September 30, 2016 (the "Prior Decision"), this Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants O'Malley, Robillard, McNally, and John and Daniel Brown. See Dkt. No. 114. The Court dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant McInerney except for Plaintiff's Section 1983 conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution claim. See id. at 51.
Before the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants John and Daniel Brown, those Defendants moved for sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). See Dkt. No. 89. Plaintiff then cross-moved for sanctions against Defendants John and Daniel Brown and their attorney. See Dkt. No. 90.
Currently before the Court are three motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed separately by Defendants Smith, Ogden, and the County of Rensselaer (the "County"). See Dkt. Nos. 73, 96, 97. Also before the Court are Defendants John and Daniel Brown's motion for sanctions and Plaintiff's cross-motion for sanctions. See Dkt. Nos. 89, 90.
The Court refers the parties to the Prior Decision, which extensively sets forth the factual background and allegations in Plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. No. 114. Accordingly, the Court will provide a brief recitation of the facts and discuss only those allegations that are relevant to disposition of the pending motions.
Defendant Youel C. Smith III, also known as Trey Smith ("Defendant Smith"), was appointed special district attorney of Rensselaer County to prosecute alleged absentee ballot forgeries in the 2009 Troy City elections. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 24-25. Defendant John J. Ogden ("Defendant Ogden") is employed by the New York State Police ("NYSP") and was assigned to assist Defendant Smith in investigating the forgery scheme. See id. ¶ 323.
The general allegations in this case surround an alleged scheme to forge and submit false applications for absentee ballots ("AAB") and then file the subsequently forged absentee ballots ("AB"). An AAB is a simple, single-page document that must be signed and completed by the voter or his agent before it can be filed with the Board of Elections. See id. ¶ 101. Once an AAB is completed, signed, and filed, an AB and an AB envelope are mailed to the voter or to the voter's AB agent, if one is designated. Id. ¶ 102. The AABs require the voter to list a reason for why he or she is eligible to vote absentee ("excuses"). See id. ¶ 2.
In the summer of 2009, Defendant Kevin McGrath announced that he was running to take Democratic control of the Working Family Party line for the City of Troy elections. Id. ¶ 51. Defendant McGrath and other democratic operatives, including Defendants William McInerney, John Brown, and Daniel Brown, had voters sign AABs without completing the remainder of the form, and then these Defendants completed the AABs with false AB names and excuses, filed them, and obtained the AB for those voters. See id. ¶¶ 51-56, 81-88. After receiving the ABs, these Defendants falsely voted with the ABs in forged AB envelopes. See id. ¶¶ 56, 80.
Around September of 2009, the forgery scheme was discovered and an action was commenced to invalidate the forged ABs. See id. ¶¶ 161-65, 180. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Richard J. McNally, who was employed as the district attorney of Rensselaer County, disqualified his office from investigating or prosecuting any case related to the AB forgery, and Defendant Smith was appointed as special prosecutor for any further criminal action related to the 2009 AB forgery scheme. See id. ¶¶ 27, 229. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith had ample evidence to prosecute other democratic operatives for the 2009 AB forgery scheme, but instead actively conspired to initiate a scapegoat prosecution against Plaintiff in order to shift the negative attention and criminal charges away from the other Defendants. See id. ¶¶ 343-45.
As outlined in the Prior Decision, the alleged inadequacies of Defendant Smith's investigation into the other Defendants for the AB forgery include the following: (1) the photograph shown to voters to identify Defendant McInerney was a twenty-year-old photograph, which did not accurately reflect his current appearance; (2) photographs of Defendants John Brown, Daniel Brown, and other democratic operatives were not shown to voters; (3) several key democratic party operatives, including Defendant Renna and Robert Martiniano, were not interviewed for the investigation; (4) certain witnesses were not specifically asked questionsabout Defendant McInerney's involvement in the AB forgery; (5) the forged AB documents purportedly signed by Defendant McInerney were not examined by a handwriting expert; (6) when presented with significant evidence that Defendant McInerney had participated in AB fraud in the 2007 and 2008 elections, Defendant Smith stated that he did not have authority to prosecute those actions. See id. ¶¶ 364-380, 400, 487, 492-500. Moreover, from 2009 through 2011, Defendant Smith told officials in the NYSP that Defendants McInerney and John Brown could not be prosecuted because the evidence against them "was not legally sufficient to corroborate the testimony of DeFiglio or any accomplice or co-conspirator . . . ." Id. ¶ 573.
In September of 2010, Defendant Smith commenced a grand jury proceeding against Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 708. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith conspired with several Defendants to present false testimony that implicated Plaintiff instead of the democratic operatives who were actually guilty. See id. ¶¶ 740-43, 758-62. Moreover, Defendant Smith prepared and notarized the affidavits of those individuals who did not testify. Id. ¶ 815. At trial, two of those voters testified that the signature on their purported affidavit was not genuine. Id. ¶ 816; see also Dkt. No. 1-1 at 26-30.
On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff was charged by indictment with 38 counts of felony forgery in the second degree and 36 counts of felony criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 809. In April of 2011, Plaintiff contacted the U.S. attorney's office and requested an FBI investigation into his allegedly unlawful prosecution. See id. ¶ 929. Between May 25 and August 4, 2011, the NYSP conducted an independent investigation into this matter. See id. ¶ 944. That investigation gathered sufficient evidence against Defendant McInerney for the forgery of approximately 50 of the AABs that appeared to be forged in his handwriting. See id. ¶ 947. Defendant McInerney was subsequently arrested for the AB forgeriesthat occurred in 2007 and 2008. See id. ¶ 993. Defendant McInerney also pled guilty to one felony count and was sentenced to a 90 day work order in satisfaction of all charges relating to his involvement in the 2009 AB forgery scheme. See id. ¶ 971. Plaintiff was ultimately acquitted on December 21, 2012. See id. ¶¶ 1199-1200.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Smith and Ogden maliciously prosecuted him and also engaged in a conspiracy with other Defendants to effectuate Plaintiff's malicious prosecution. Plaintiff further alleges that the County should also be held liable for Defendants Smith's and McNally's actions. Defendants Smith, Ogden, and the County have moved to dismiss the complaint.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the party's claim for relief. See Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). In considering the legal sufficiency, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the pleading and draw all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor. See ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). This presumption of truth, however, does not extend to legal conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Although a court's review of a motion to dismiss is generally limited to the facts presented in the pleading, the court may consider documents that are "integral" to that pleading,...
To continue reading
Request your trial