Hutchins v. Former Monticello Police Chief Douglas Solomon

THEODORE HUTCHINS, Plaintiff, v. FORMER MONTICELLO POLICE CHIEF DOUGLAS SOLOMON;FORMER MONTICELLO ACTING POLICE CHIEF MARK JOHNSTONE;FORMER MONTICELLO POLICE DETECTIVE LUIS FELICIANO;and SULLIVAN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAMES FARRELL, Defendants.

No. 16-CV-10029 (KMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 29, 2018

OPINION & ORDER

Appearances:

Jonathan S. Wachlarz, Esq.

Robert E. Borrero, Esq.

Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC

New York, NY

Counsel for Plaintiff

David L. Posner, Esq.

McCabe & Mack LLP

Poughkeepsie, NY

Counsel for Defendants Douglas Solomon, Mark Johnstone, and Luis Feliciano

Steven C. Stern, Esq.

Alexander J. Eleftherakis, Esq.

Sokoloff Stern LLP

Carle Place, NY

Counsel for Defendant James Farrell

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiff Theodore Hutchins ("Plaintiff") brings this Action against former Monticello Police Chief Douglas Solomon ("Solomon"), former Monticello Acting Police Chief Mark Johnstone ("Johnstone"), Monticello Police Detective Luis Feliciano ("Feliciano") (collectively "Monticello Defendants"), all of whom were employed by the Village of Monticello as members of the Village of Monticello Police Department ("MPD"), and Sullivan County District Attorney James Farrell ("Farrell"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging malicious prosecution, denial of the right to a fair trial, due process violations, and conspiracy to commit each of the foregoing. (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 41).) Before the Court are Monticello Defendants' and Farrell's Motions To Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Monticello Defs.' Not. Of Mot. (Dkt. No. 50); Farrell Not. Of Mot. (Dkt. No. 53).) For the reasons to follow, the Motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and are assumed to be true for purposes of resolving the Motions.

1. Hiring of New Officer and Background Investigation

At all times relevant to the allegations in this case, Plaintiff served as a Trustee on the Board of Trustees for the Village of Monticello. (Am. Compl. ¶ 7.) Solomon was employed as Monticello Police Chief until March 1, 2012. (Id. ¶ 13.) He began working for the City of Beacon Police Department on March 5, 2012, and is still employed there. (Id.) He was elected as a Trustee of the Village of Monticello in March 2014 and was appointed as Mayor of the Village of Monticello in March 2016. (Id.) Johnstone was acting Police Chief of the Village of Monticello from March 1, 2012 to August 19, 2012. (Id. ¶ 14.) Johnstone became a lieutenant of the MPD in August 2012. (Id.) Feliciano was employed by the MPD as a detective and currently works as an investigator for the Sullivan County District Attorney's Office. (Id. ¶ 15.)Farrell was the lead prosecutor assigned to Plaintiff's prosecution, (id. ¶ 135), as well as the chief law enforcement official in Sullivan County at all times relevant to the investigation into and prosecution of Plaintiff, (id. ¶¶ 136-37).

During 2010-2011, the MPD sought to hire a new officer and sought the cooperation of John LiGreci ("LiGreci"), the Village Manager for Monticello, and Carolyn Hill ("Hill"), the Personnel Director for Sullivan County, to begin the hiring process. (Id. ¶ 40.) Pursuant to the New York Civil Service hiring guidelines, applicants for police officer positions must pass the New York State Civil Service test. (Id. ¶ 41.) If applicants pass the test they are put on a civil service list for consideration when openings arise. (Id.) Kariem McCline ("McCline") applied, qualified for, and was placed on the civil service list for consideration for future openings at the MPD and was included on a list of qualified applicants generated by Hill to fill the request for a new police officer. (Id. ¶ 42.)

As Village Manager, LiGreci served as a supervisor to the MPD Police Chief. (Id. ¶ 56.) LiGreci ordered Solomon to conduct a background investigation into McCline, as part of the hiring process. (Id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiff alleges that Monticello Defendants were aware that LiGreci, as Village Manager, had the sole authority to make hiring decisions for the municipal departments, including the MPD. (Id. ¶ 55.)¹ Plaintiff alleges he believed it was withinLiGreci's authority to commence and halt background investigations, (id. ¶ 54), and he was not aware of Solomon having any independent authority to conduct a background investigation, (id. ¶ 58).

Solomon created a background investigation procedure to use in investigating McCline. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff alleges that Monticello Defendants knew that Solomon had created the procedure he was using to investigate McCline, (id. ¶¶ 45, 62), after receiving the directive from LiGreci to begin the background investigation, (id. ¶ 63).² Solomon testified that he made up his mind that McCline was not qualified to be a police officer from the beginning of the background investigation. (Id. ¶ 46.) The Amended Complaint does not specify where Solomon testified to this effect.

Feliciano participated in the background investigation into McCline by interviewing community members. (Id. ¶ 47.) He asked some community members whether they knew if McCline associated with "undesirable people" and lived with a partner "out of wedlock." (Id.) LiGreci received a complaint from at least one community member that offensive questions were being asked as part of the investigation into McCline. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 64.) Thereafter, LiGreci confronted Solomon about the inappropriate questions and the length of time the background investigation was taking. (Id. ¶ 65.) LiGreci then halted the background investigation because it was proceeding in an inappropriate manner and was taking too long to complete. (Id. ¶ 49.)Plaintiff did not personally compel Solomon in any way to stop the background investigation into McCline. (Id. ¶ 71.)

Plaintiff alleges that each Monticello Defendant was aware that LiGreci had the authority to halt the background investigation into McCline, (id. ¶ 67), and that therefore Monticello Defendants knew that LiGreci's order to stop the investigation could not possibly be "unauthorized" or "stretched into being criminal," (id. ¶ 69). Plaintiff alleges that Monticello Defendants "knew no crime was committed" and that "LiGreci acted within his power." (Id. ¶ 70.)

2. Monticello Defendants' Contact with Farrell

Plaintiff alleges that despite their knowledge that no crime had been committed, Monticello Defendants falsely informed Farrell "and misled him into believing" that LiGreci had improperly ordered them to stop the McCline background investigation, and that Plaintiff was an accessory to the crime. (Id. ¶ 72.)

Until his retirement on March 1, 2012, Solomon compiled the investigative file regarding McCline's background check. (Id. ¶ 73b.) Upon his retirement, Solomon turned this file over to Johnstone who took over as acting police chief. (Id. ¶¶ 73a, 73g.) Johnstone spoke with Solomon about the background investigation. (Id. ¶ 73i.) Until his retirement, "Solomon was in regular communication with Farrell regarding things that were going on in the Village of Monticello." (Id. ¶ 73c.) During that time Solomon informed Farrell that he felt "threatened by" Plaintiff with regard to McCline's application. (Id. ¶ 73d.) Prior to Johnstone taking over as police chief, Feliciano was responsible for the background investigation. (Id. ¶ 73f.) Upon Johnstone taking over, Feliciano prepared a final memorandum and completed the background investigation. (Id. ¶ 73h.)

On July 25, 2012, a criminal investigation began into McCline's application process. (Id. ¶ 73j.) As part of the criminal investigation, Johnstone provided Farrell information about the McCline hiring process. (Id. ¶ 73k.) Johnstone spoke to Farrell on a daily basis between the time he became acting police chief in March 2012, and the time the criminal investigation began in July 2012. (Id. ¶ 73m.) Johnstone also met with Defendant Farrell in person. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that during these conversations, Johnstone falsely informed Farrell that Plaintiff was engaged in criminal activity. (Id. ¶ 73l.) Plaintiff alleges that Farrell initiated and manufactured the criminal investigation "for purposes of bringing about the subsequent criminal charges against Plaintiff and LiGreci." (Id. ¶ 87.)

3. LiGreci's Directive to Johnstone to Answer Questions

After the initiation of the criminal investigation, LiGreci learned that the Village of Monticello faced potential civil litigation from McCline for the discriminatory fashion in which "his application was processed and his background investigation was conducted." (Id. ¶ 83.) LiGreci presented Solomon, and subsequently Johnstone, "with a list of questions to answer regarding the background investigation in preparation for the possible civil litigation." (Id. ¶ 84.)

After Johnstone received the directive from LiGreci, he consulted with Farrell, who informed him that there was an ongoing criminal investigation into McCline and LiGreci. (Id. ¶ 86.) Johnstone subsequently refused to provide the answers to LiGreci "under the guise of avoiding interference with the allegedly ongoing criminal investigation." (Id. ¶ 88.) Johnstone wrote answers to LiGreci's questions but submitted them to the then acting MPD Chief Mir on the day they were due to LiGreci. (Id. ¶ 92.) Johnstone's answers were immediately seized by investigators for the Sullivan County District Attorney's Office at Farrell's directive. (Id. ¶ 93.) After Plaintiff was indicted with McCline and LiGreci, Johnstone eventually testified atPlaintiff's trial that he never informed LiGreci of the ongoing criminal investigation as he did not want certain people, including Plaintiff, to learn that there was a criminal investigation. (Id. ¶ 89.)

Plaintiff alleges that LiGreci was authorized to direct Johnstone to provide answers to questions related to...