Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Conquistador v. Hartford Police Departmemnt

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 13, 2017

JEAN K. CONQUISTADOR, Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

         I. Introduction

         On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff Jean Conquistador brought this lawsuit against the City of Hartford, Hartford Police Department, Hartford Police Officer Jones, and Hartford Police Officer Welson, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

         II. Background

         A. Allegations

         The plaintiff alleges the following facts. On January 25, 2016, the plaintiff was “robbed at gun point by two young men.” (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8.) On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff went to the suspects' residence “in a peaceful attempt to recover his mobile phone.” (Id. at ¶ 9.) He did not report the initial robbery. (Id.) The plaintiff was chased by one of the suspects and as he fled, the plaintiff noticed that “the suspect held a handgun in his hand.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) That same day, the plaintiff stopped a Hartford Police car operated by Defendant Jones. (Id. at ¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff informed Jones that he was robbed on January 25 and the men had taken his wallet, student I.D., house keys, phone, social security card, and other items, and that one of the suspects with a gun had chased him while “attempting to shoot, possible murder the plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) The plaintiff gave Jones and Welson a good description of the suspect. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Jones and Welson then asked the plaintiff “multiple irrelevant and impertinent questions.” (Id. at ¶ 15-17.) The plaintiff was “transported to his mother's residence.” (Id. at ¶ 18.) Welson asked the plaintiff if his mother would come out to speak with them, and the plaintiff replied that “he was not going to wake his mother to speak with him, as it was an unnecessary thing to do such.” (Id. at ¶ 19.) Welson then asked to speak with the “young lady that opened the door, ” and the plaintiff informed them that the woman was his brother's “spouse” or “girlfriend.” (Id. at ¶ 20.) Welson asked the plaintiff to get her because he wanted to speak with her “one on one.” (Id.) The plaintiff replied that this was “insulting.” (Id.)

         The plaintiff volunteered to go with Welson and Jones to recover his property, but was told that he could not go. (Id. at ¶ 21-22.) They asked where he was initially robbed and he gave them an “accurate description.” (Id. at ¶ 23-24.) Welson then called the plaintiff's mother's phone and told the plaintiff that they “could not find the building where the incident transpired.” (Id. at ¶ 25.) None of the suspects were arrested. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

         B. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed his complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on February 1, 2016. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February 10, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) The Court granted a motion to reopen the case and the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on June 15, 2016. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 18, 2016.

         III. Standard

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must determine whether the Plaintiff has alleged “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570. Under Twombly, the Court accepts as true all of the complaint's factual allegations when evaluating a motion to dismiss. Id. at 572. The Court must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104, 115 (2d Cir. 2008). “When a complaint is based solely on wholly conclusory allegations and provides no factual support for such claims, it is appropriate to grant defendants['] motion to dismiss.” Scott v. Town of Monroe, 306 F.Supp.2d 191, 198 (D. Conn. 2004). For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, “[a]fter the court strips away conclusory allegations, there must remain sufficient well-pleaded factual allegations to nudge plaintiff's claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” In re Fosamax Products Liab. Litig., 2010 WL 1654156, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2010). In other words “a plaintiff must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 86 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

         IV. Discussion

         The plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. To state a claim under Section 1983, the plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         1. Defendant Hartford ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.