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.

Kelley v. City of Hamden

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 30, 2017

TYRONE KELLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HAMDEN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          ALVIN W. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 77) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendants as to all claims in the plaintiff’s complaint.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law.” Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir. 1995)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). The burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute exists rests on the party seeking summary judgment. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).

         “[M]ere conjecture or speculation by the party resisting summary judgment does not provide a basis upon which to deny the motion.” Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir. 1985). “[T]he plaintiff must offer concrete evidence raising genuine disputes of material fact tending to show that his version of events is more than fanciful,” and “may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.” Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).

         “At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Id.

         OFFICER JASON, OFFICER McCUE, DETECTIVE INGLESE, INVESTIGATOR RYAN, DETECTIVE DOLAN, OFFICER D’ANGELO AND SERGEANT RAGOZZINO

         These defendants are named in the caption of the complaint and the complaint contains conclusory allegations, but no specific allegations, about them. As detailed in the Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 77-1) (“Defendants’ Memorandum”), there is no evidence that these defendants were present when the plaintiffs spoke with police officers on May 29, 2013 or when he was arrested on June 30, 2013.

         “[W]here a complaint names a defendant in the caption but contains no allegations indicating exactly how the defendant violated the law or injured the plaintiff, a motion to dismiss the complaint in regard to that defendant should be granted.” Zavatsky v. Aronson, 130 F. Supp. 2d 349, 358 (D. Conn. 2001) (quoting Dove v. Fordham Univ., 56 F. Supp. 2d. 330, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)). The same principle applies now, at the summary judgment stage.

         Therefore these defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

         WILLIAM ONOFRIO AND PATROL OFFICER VENDITTO

         False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution

         The plaintiff brings claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. He contends that his arrest on June 30, 2013 was the result of an inadequate investigation and false evidence provided by these defendants, and points to the fact that he was acquitted after a jury trial in Connecticut Superior Court. However, “the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a . . . claim alleging false arrest or malicious prosecution.” Garcia v. Gasparri,1 ...


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.