United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) sued David Garcia
(“Defendant”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violations of her substantive due process rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for negligent infliction of
emotional distress and assault under Connecticut law.
Garcia has moved to for summary judgment.
following reasons, Mr. Garcia's motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED.
Vasquez's Section 1983 claims are dismissed as a matter
of law and the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims, resulting
in the closing of this case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case arises out of a series of text messages sent from Mr.
Garcia, an officer and a detective in the Bridgeport Police
Department, to Ms. Vasquez between February 26, 2015, and
April 19, 2016. Def. Statement of Material Fact, ECF No. 34-1
¶ 1 (Apr. 12, 2019) (“Def. SMF”); Pl.
Statement of Facts in Opposition, ECF No. 38 ¶ 1 (May
20, 2019) (“Pl. SMF”); Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 5
(May 23, 2017).
point before February 2015, Ms. Vasquez filed a larceny
complaint with the Bridgeport Police Department. Pl.
Additional Material Facts, ECF No. 38 at 5 (May 20, 2019)
(“Pl. Additional Facts”). Mr. Garcia, in his
capacity as detective for the Bridgeport Police Department,
investigated it. During the course of this investigation, Mr.
Garcia and Ms. Vasquez “had numerous
conversations.” Id. Ms. Vasquez had asked for
Mr. Garcia's help because they had socialized together
previously. Def. SMF ¶ 5; Pl. SMF ¶ 5. Ms.
Vasquez's then boyfriend was a close friend of Mr.
Garcia. Def. SMF ¶ 2; Pl. SMF ¶ 2.
March 4, 2016, by text message, Ms. Vasquez asked Mr. Garcia
“to inquire about items taken from here that [were]
being investigated by the defendant.” Pl. Additional
Facts ¶ 5. Mr. Garcia told her that he would call in an
hour. Id. Between March 4 and March 5 of 2016, Mr.
Garcia, however, sent a series of graphic and sexual texts to
Ms. Vasquez. Def.'s Exhibit A, ECF No. 34-2 at 2 (Apr.
12, 2019) (“Def. Exh. A”). The content of
these text messages “did not mention, refer, or to
relate [sic] to any police business or investigation.”
Def. SMF ¶ 6.
time of these messages, Ms. Vasquez lived in New Haven,
Connecticut, rather than Bridgeport, Connecticut. Def. SMF
¶ 9; Pl. SMF ¶ 9. Mr. Garcia, however, did not know
that she had moved to New Haven. Id. After receiving
the graphic and sexual text messages, Ms. Vasquez felt
offended, scared, embarrassed and disrespected. Pl. SMF
23, 2017, Ms. Vasquez filed this Complaint, alleging
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and civil assault. Compl., ECF No. 1 (May
23, 2017). She also filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Mot. to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, ECF No. 2 (May 23, 2017).
24, 2017, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
William I. Garfinkel to review the motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Order, ECF No. 6 (May 24,
2017). Judge Garfinkel granted the motion on May 25, 2018.
Order, ECF No. 7 (May 25, 2017).
August 10, 2017, Mr. Garcia timely filed an Answer. Answer,
ECF No. 14 (Aug. 10, 2017).
November 9, 2018, the Court held a post-discovery telephonic
status conference. ...