Rosen v. Alquist

• Decision Date: 07 December 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-01911 (VLB)
• Parties: MARLA S. ROSEN, PLAINTIFF, v. MICHAEL ALQUIST, DEFENDANT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

MARLA S. ROSEN, PLAINTIFF,

v.MICHAEL ALQUIST, DEFENDANT.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-01911 (VLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DECEMBER 7, 2012

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. #24]

I. Introduction

The Plaintiff, Marla S. Rosen ("Rosen"), brings this action for monetary relief against Defendant Police Officer Michael Alquist ("Alquist" or "Sergeant Alquist") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution and false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment stemming from Rosen's arrest pursuant to a warrant. Plaintiff also alleges intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under Connecticut law. Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in which Defendant contends that the warrant and Rosen's subsequent arrest were supported by probable cause. For the reasons stated hereafter, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's federal law claims is GRANTED. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

II. Factual Background

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) requires that

[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support that fact.

Rules 56(c)(2) and (c)(3) declare that a "party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence" and that "[t]he court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Additionally, "[i]f a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion . . . [or] grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials - including the facts considered disputed - show that the movant is entitled to it . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), (e)(3).

Further, Local Rules of this district impose several specific requirements on the parties when arguing a summary judgment motion. Local Rule 56 requires that a party filing a summary judgment motion annex a "concise statement of each material fact as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 56(a)(1). "All material facts set forth in said statement and supported by the evidence will be deemed admitted unlesscontroverted by the statement required to be filed and served by the opposing party. . ." Id. Local Rule 56(a)(2) requires that the papers opposing a motion for summary judgment shall include a document which states "whether each of the facts asserted by the moving party is admitted or denied" and must also include a "list of each issue of material fact as to which it is contended there is a genuine issue to be tried." Each statement of material fact in a Local Rule 56(a)(1) or Local Rule 56(a)(2) statement, as well as each denial in a summary judgment opponent's Local Rule 56(a)(2) statement, "must be followed by a specific citation to (1) the affidavit of a witness competent to testify as to the facts at trial and/or (2) evidence that would be admissible at trial." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 56(a)(3).

Here, Defendant Alquist has submitted a Local Rule 56(a)(1) statement in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, however, has failed to include a proper 56(a)(2) statement with her Objection to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Instead, Plaintiff declares that she "adopts the factual background as set forth in the Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support" with the exception of certain enumerated "comments or disputes," in explanation of which Plaintiff only partially references portions of Defendant's 56(a)(1) statement with which she takes issue. [Dkt. 25-1, P's Objection to MSJ at p. 3]. Plaintiff has also submitted portions of Alquist's and her own deposition testimony in support of her Objection. Thus, the Court will consider the facts presented in Defendant's 56(a)(1) statement and the admissible evidence to which it cites to be controlling where adopted by Rosen, or where Rosen has objected to such facts but has failed to support her objection with admissible evidence in the record. SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (holding that Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'"). Where a fact has been adequately disputed, the Court notes such.

On January 16, 2008, Sergeant Alquist, a member of the West Hartford Police Department ("WHPD"), was dispatched to King Philip Middle School in West Hartford to investigate a report of possible sexual abuse of a seventh grade, twelve year old female student (the "alleged victim" or the "girl") by her step-father. [Dkt. 24-2, D's 56 Stmnt. at ¶¶ 1, 3; Dkt. 24-8, Arrest Warrant Affidavit ("AWA") at ¶ 2]. Upon his arrival a guidance counselor, Megan Johnson, informed Sergeant Alquist that she had received a call from a parent, Lleidy Deleon (also known as Lleidy Gonzalez), who informed Ms. Johnson that the alleged victim had told her that her step-father, Marvin Brown, had touched her on her "privates" really hard. [Dkt. 24-2, D's 56 Stmnt. at ¶ 4]. Ms. Deleon also recounted to Ms. Johnson that the alleged victim told her she had reported the incident to her mother - Plaintiff Marla Rosen - who made Mr. Brown leave the home the next day. [Id. at ¶ 5]. Ms. Deleon reported that the alleged victim had told her earlier that day that she did not want to go to her home after school because her stepfather was there babysitting her younger siblings; thus, Ms. Deleon had gathered the alleged victim from school and brought her to her own home. [Id. at ¶ 6; Dkt. 24-7, WHPD Incident Report at p. 2]. Ms. Johnson informedSergeant Alquist that she would report this incident to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. [Dkt. 24-2, D's 56 Stmnt. at ¶ 7].

After speaking with Ms. Johnson, Sergeant Alquist proceeded that same day to speak with Ms. Deleon at her home. [Dkt. 24-2, D's 56 Stmnt. at ¶ 8]. Ms. Deleon reported that the alleged victim had disclosed to her that Mr. Brown had molested her on New Year's Eve and, when Ms. Deleon asked the alleged victim what Mr. Brown had done, the girl responded that "he was touching my private on New Year's Eve." [Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10]. According to Ms. Deleon, the alleged victim disclosed that she had told her mother, Marla Rosen, about the incident, and that Rosen had responded that Mr. Brown was probably drunk and the alleged victim should not tell anyone about the incident because then the police would be involved. [Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12].

Sergeant Alquist then interviewed the alleged victim, who recounted that Marvin Brown had come into her bed on New Year's Eve and "touched [her] on [her] down part." [Dkt. 24-2, D's 56 Stmnt. at ¶ 13]. When asked whether Brown had touched her over or under her clothes, the alleged victim responded "under." [Id.]. The girl recounted that she had told her mother, the Plaintiff, about the incident and the Plaintiff had made Mr. Brown leave the next day, and also that Mr. Brown had been back to visit her younger siblings a few times but always when her mother was there. [Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15]. She disclosed that she had called her mother at work earlier in the day on January 16, 2008 and learned that Mr. Brown was at her home babysitting her younger siblings. The alleged victim told her mother that she was uncomfortable being in the house with Mr. Brown andasked if she could go to the library instead of returning home after school. [Id. at ¶ 15]. The Plaintiff assented, as long as her daughter could find someone to walk with her to the library. When the alleged victim could not find anyone to accompany her, she called Ms. Deleon to request that she be allowed to go to her house instead. [Id.]. During her interview with Alquist, the alleged victim contradicted Ms. Deleon's report and asserted that her mother, the Plaintiff, had not instructed her to tell no one about the incident. [Id.; Dkt. 24-8, AWA at ¶ 4].

After speaking with the alleged victim, Sergeant Alquist proceeded to Rosen's home to interview her. [Dkt. 24-2, D's 56 Stmnt. at ¶ 16]. Rosen explained to Alquist that her daughter had come into her bedroom during the night in question and had told her that Mr. Brown had come into her bed and put his arm around her. [Id. at ¶ 17]. Rosen asserted that she questioned Mr. Brown about what had happened and he answered that he did not remember. [Id.]. Rosen recounted that Mr. Brown had consumed a "couple of beers" that night and could have made a mistake, "thinking that he was climbing into bed with" Rosen and not with her daughter. [Id.]. Rosen further stated that she and the other children slept in her bed with the door locked for the rest of the night "just to be safe." [Id. at ¶ 18]. The next day, Rosen told Mr. Brown that he had to leave, and he did. [Id.]. Rosen admitted to Alquist, though, that Mr. Brown had visited the house a few times since New Year's Eve to see his two children (the younger siblings of the alleged victim), but he never stayed overnight. [Id.]. At the conclusion of the interview, Rosen also admitted that she told the alleged victimnot to tell her birth father (who is...