Rosenfeld v. Egy, Civil Action No. 01-10730-DPW (D. Mass. 1/29/2003)
| Decision Date | 29 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 01-10730-DPW. |
| Parties | JOEL ROSENFELD, Plaintiff, v. DAVID C. EGY and ALBERT J. BAIMA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Plaintiff Joel Rosenfeld brings various § 1983 and state-law claims against an officer and the chief of the Millis Police Department based primarily upon their alleged involvement in (1) the removal of Rosenfeld from police duty, (2) the revocation of Rosenfeld's firearms license, (3) the denial of Rosenfeld's application to renew his expired firearms license, (4) the decision of Rosenfeld's wife to seek a restraining order, and (5) the officer's alleged assault of Rosenfeld. Before me are the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all counts.1
In 1986, Rosenfeld filed a lawsuit in state court against defendant Albert Baima, then the police chief of the Town of Millis, alleging that Baima trespassed on his property. The lawsuit was settled. In 1987, the Millis Board of Selectman convened hearings to consider whether Baima should be removed as chief of police. During testimony at the hearings, the plaintiff made statements that were adverse to or critical of Baima.
Defendant Officer David Egy also testified adversely to Baima at the hearings. No action was taken against Baima as a result of those hearings.
A decade later, during the summer of 1997, Charlotte Rosenfeld, Rosenfeld's wife, told Egy, then a patrolman with the Millis Police Department, that she had been a victim of abuse by her husband. At that time, Joel Rosenfeld was employed as a reserve intermittent police officer by the Millis Police Department. At some time prior to April 1998, Egy photographed Charlotte Rosenfeld depicting a bruise on her face.
On April 30, 1998, there was a confrontation between the plaintiff and Egy at the Millis Police Station. Most of the details of this confrontation are in dispute, however, it is undisputed that Rosenfeld expressed his displeasure regarding Egy's interactions with Charlotte Rosenfeld and that Egy showed Rosenfeld a picture of Charlotte Rosenfeld with a black eye.2 Egy told Rosenfeld at this time that he had made a report of abuse to the Norfolk County District Attorney. It is also undisputed that during this confrontation Egy struck Rosenfeld with his open palm. Rosenfeld has not alleged that the confrontation resulted in any physical injuries.
On May 1, 1998, Rosenfeld called Baima at his home to report that Egy struck him during the altercation the day before. Baima went to Rosenfeld's home at Rosenfeld's request to discuss the matter.
Rosenfeld wrote a report concerning the altercation in which he also made allegations that Egy and his wife were involved in a romantic relationship. Rosenfeld gave Baima the report on May 2, 1998.
Baima subsequently confronted Egy with Rosenfeld's allegations. Egy told Baima that Rosenfeld had become aware that Egy was investigating Charlotte Rosenfeld's allegations of abuse and this knowledge had caused the plaintiff to initiate the confrontation. Egy showed Baima a report he had prepared concerning the matter and the photograph of Charlotte. Baima was not aware of the alleged abuse or the investigation prior to this date.
On May 3, 1998, Millis Patrolman Roderick MacLeod gave Baima a memo in which he alleged that Rosenfeld was responsible for domestic abuse. On or about May 3, 1998, Baima turned the matter over to the Norfolk District Attorney Sexual Assault Unit.
On May 3, 1998, Baima wrote a letter to Rosenfeld ordering him removed from the active duty roster and ordering him to turn in his service firearm and license to carry due to circumstances surrounding the April 30, 1998 incident. The letter stated that Rosenfeld's "department weapon and license to carry shall be surrendered immediately and will remain with me."3 Also, on May 3, 1998, Baima sent Egy a letter ordering him to turn in his service firearm and placing him on administrative leave pending investigation of the April 30, 1998 incident.
On May 4, 1998, Rosenfeld sent a "letter of disinvitation" to Egy, stating that Egy's presence was "no longer welcome" at the "Rosenfeld Residence" at 375 Orchard Street and that his presence at the residence would amount to a trespass.
Baima rescinded Egy's administrative leave effective May 18, 1998, subject to a number of conditions including: turning in the photograph of Charlotte Rosenfeld for submission to the District Attorney's Office, ceasing participation in an independent investigation of the allegations of abuse of Charlotte Rosenfeld, and abiding by Rosenfeld's letter of disinvitation.
On June 3, 1998, Rosenfeld's license to carry a firearm expired. On July 21, 1998, he submitted an application for renewal of his license to carry a firearm. On August 17, 1998, he submitted a number of documents, including letters of reference and newspaper articles, in support of his application for renewal.
In August 1998, Baima requested a status report from the Norfolk County District Attorney regarding the progress of the investigation. On August 6, 1998,4 the Office of the District Attorney for the Norfolk District replied that because Charlotte Rosenfeld was unwilling to cooperate with an investigation of her husband's abuse, the district attorney was "unable to proceed further with this particular investigation."
On October 13, 1998, Baima informed the plaintiff that his application for renewal of his firearm license was denied.
Charlotte Rosenfeld initiated divorce proceedings on December 9, 1998, and at the same time brought a "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order" against Rosenfeld. It is not clear from the record before me whether a restraining order was issued against Rosenfeld at that time.
On March 8, 1999, Charlotte Rosenfeld obtained an ex parte Abuse Prevention Order, or restraining order, against Rosenfeld pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A. The order required Rosenfeld not to abuse or contact Charlotte and to stay away from her home and workplace. The order further required the plaintiff to surrender his firearms to the police department. Sergeant Peter McGowan served the restraining order on Rosenfeld that day. McGowan collected one machine gun from Rosenfeld at that time.
That evening, Rosenfeld faxed McGowan nine firearms transaction cards indicating that Rosenfeld had sold his remaining nine handguns to his brother, Marc Rosenfeld, in December 1998. McGowan subsequently determined that of those nine firearms, one was currently in the possession of Officer Robert Dixon of the Millis Police Department and eight were in the possession of Larry Bruce, another relative of Rosenfeld's.
Egy prepared a report dated March 11, 1999, citing concerns about the legality of the transfer of Rosenfeld's nine firearms and uncertainty as to whose control they were under. Attached to the report were the nine transfer cards relating to the gun transfers between Rosenfeld and his brother.
On March 16, 1999, the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court held a hearing on whether to extend the order of March 8. Rosenfeld, Baima, and Egy were present at the hearing. During the hearing, Egy's report was handed to the judge.5 The court continued the restraining order with two modifications:
On April 18, 1999, the Town of Millis held a dedication ceremony for Rosenfeld's mother, Hindy Rosenfeld. It is unclear from the record the exact nature of this event, which has been characterized by the plaintiff as the "Hindy Rosenfeld Dedication Ceremony at the Town's new office building." Complaint ¶ 104. Rosenfeld attended the dedication ceremony. He left after seeing Egy was also in attendance.
On December 9, 1999, Rosenfeld sought to move his personal belongings from the Orchard Street residence. According to Rosenfeld, a letter from Rosenfeld's attorney dated December 15, 1999, and a statement in Officer Dixon's police report regarding the incident, the parties had agreed that Egy would not be present when Rosenfeld moved his belongings out of the Orchard Street house. However, Egy was present when Rosenfeld arrived. Rosenfeld canceled his plans to move out that day.
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material if it has the "potential to affect the outcome of the suit under applicable law." Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2000). A genuine issue is one that "may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 960 (1st Cir. 1997).
Rosenfeld argues that Egy took a number of actions under color of law, not to serve governmental ends, but to advance the affair he was allegedly having with Charlotte Rosenfeld. These actions, contends Rosenfeld, constitute violations of the Fourth Amendment, due process, and equal protection.
Rosenfeld first brings a § 1983 claim against Egy for Egy's actions during the April 30, 1998 incident between Egy and Rosenfeld. Presumably, although not stated in the complaint, this action is thought to concern a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
"To sustain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983," Rosenfeld must prove both: "(i) that the conduct complained of has been committed under color of state law, and (ii) that this conduct worked a denial of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of...
To continue reading
Request your trial