Lombardo v. Town of Hempstead

STANLEY LOMBARDO, Plaintiff, v. THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, ANTHONY SANTINO, and THOMAS METZGER, Defendants.

17-CV-4921 (JMA)(SIL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 26, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEVEN I. LOCKE, United States Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Stanley Lombardo ("Plaintiff" or "Lombardo") brings this action against Defendants the Town of Hempstead (the "Town"), Anthony Santino ("Santino"), and Thomas Metzger ("Metzger," together with Santino, the "Individual Defendants," and collectively with the Town, "Defendants"), alleging, inter alia, violations of his free speech and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Complaint ("Compl."), Docket Entry ("DE") [1]. Presently before the Court, on referral from the Honorable Joan M. Azrack for decision with the consent of the parties, is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See DE [19]; see also Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim ("Defs.' Mem"), DE [19-1]. Lombardo opposes the motion. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Plf.'s Mem."), DE [20]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion, dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, and affords Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

I. Background

The following facts are taken from the Complaint and are accepted as true for the purposes of this motion.¹ The Complaint, however, tells a jumbled narrative, and as a result the Court does its best to extract the factual allegations in a cohesive manner.

Lombardo is a longtime resident of the Village of East Rockaway, New York, which is located in the Town of Hempstead. See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 6. In addition to residing in the Town, Plaintiff was employed therein as a sanitation laborer beginning in March 1989 until he voluntarily retired on November 10, 2016. See id. ¶¶ 10, 19. From 1992 through 2015, Lombardo was regularly promoted as a result of passing multiple civil service exams. See id. ¶ 10.

As a Town resident, Plaintiff was involved in local politics, and sat on the East Rockaway Board (the "Board").² See id. ¶ 11. Because of his political affiliations, beginning in 1991, Lombardo frequently interacted with Santino, who was the"political leader" of East Rockaway, as well as a Town Councilman.³ See id. Eventually, Santino became the Town Supervisor, but the Court is unsure when exactly he assumed this role as the Complaint states initially that he began serving in January 2016, and then subsequently that his term commenced around the time when Plaintiff retired in November 2016. See id. ¶¶ 8, 19.

In any event, Plaintiff claims that he and Santino clashed over political issues, including Santino's penchant for appointing friends to lucrative jobs regardless of their qualifications. See id. ¶ 13. Specifically, Lombardo alleges that in or around 2013-2014 Santino hired Tommy Steinback as a part-time laborer for the Town's Department of Public Works ("DPW") and then "attempted to use his influence" to get Steinback a full-time position. See id. ¶ 14. Lombardo claims that Steinback was also friends with Defendant Metzger, who serves as Superintendent of the Town's sanitation department in Merrick and is also a "close political ally" of Santino. See id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff does not specify what, if any, authority Santino had over the Town's hiring procedures at the DPW when Steinback was promoted, as the Complaint alleges that Santino became Supervisor in January 2016 at the earliest. In any event, Lombardo recused himself from the vote on Steinback's employment due to reservations over his qualifications and seniority. See id. Plaintiff does not contend that he voiced any of his concerns to Santino or the rest of the Board. Nevertheless, Lombardo concludes that Santino thereafter harbored a grudge for "daring to oppose" him. See id.

After abstaining from the vote on Steinback's promotion in 2013-2014, Plaintiff alleges that Santino, with the help of Metzger, began retaliating against him with respect to Lombardo's employment and political aspirations. See id. ¶¶ 2, 13. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Santino: (i) prevented him from running for Trustee of the East Rockaway Board in March 2015, by destroying petitions and giving the Village Pride Party's nomination to someone else, despite the Party's endorsement of Lombardo; (ii) requested that Plaintiff be transferred from Senior Supervisor in Merrick to Senior Supervisor at the Oceanside, NY landfill, which, although technically a lateral move, stripped Plaintiff of his supervisory authority and access to various buildings;⁴ (iii) denied him overtime pay while granting it to others; (iv) deprived him of an appropriate raise after being promoted to Assistant Superintendent of the Oceanside landfill; and (v) engaged Metzger to harass and mock him and his son, Michael, who also works for the Town. See id. ¶¶ 15-18, 21.

Further, during the final eight years of his employment with the Town, Plaintiff cared for a feral cat colony located at the Oceanside landfill. See id. ¶ 12. In caring for the cats at his own expense, Lombardo fed the animals and had them spayed or neutered. See id. After retiring on November 10, 2016, Lombardo met with Santino in January 2017 to attempt to "broker a peace," and requested to come back to work part-time or on a volunteer basis so that he could continue to care for the cats. See id. ¶¶ 19, 20. Santino declined to rehire Plaintiff. See id. ¶ 20. Despite no longer being in the Town's employ, Lombardo continued caring for the animals untilJune 2017, at which point he was barred from entering the landfill because the premises are closed to the public. See id. ¶ 22.⁵

Based on the above, Plaintiff commenced suit on August 21, 2017. See DE [1]. The Complaint purports to state two causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for: (i) violations of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; and (ii) retaliation under the First Amendment's right to free assembly. See id. ¶¶ 28, 30. On August 3, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See DE [19]. On November 2, 2018, Judge Azrack referred the motion to this Court for report and recommendation and subsequently, upon the parties' consent, ordered that this Court instead render a final decision. See November 2, 2018 Order Referring Motion; see also DEs [24], [25].

II. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a pleading must set forth "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A pleading "that offers only 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965).

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in Lombardo's Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See LaFaro v. New York Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009). The Court may consider:

(1) the factual allegations in the complaint, which are accepted as true; (2) documents attached to the complaint as an exhibit or incorporated . . . by reference; (3) matters of which judicial notice may be taken; and (4) documents upon whose terms and effect the complaint relies heavily, i.e., documents that are "integral" to the complaint.

Calcutti v. SBU, Inc., 273 F. Supp. 2d 488, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal citation omitted); see also Miotto v. Yonkers Pub. Sch., 534 F. Supp. 2d 422, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[I]n assessing the legal sufficiency of a claim, the court may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, and any document attached as an exhibit to the complaint or incorporated in it by reference"). Where, as here, the action is brought under Section 1983, the Second Circuit has "repeatedly held [that] complaints relying on the civil rights statutes are insufficient unless they contain some specific allegations of fact indicating a deprivation of rights, instead of a litany of general conclusions that shock but have no meaning." Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 1987) (collecting cases).

III. Discussion

Applying the standards outlined above, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state any viable claims for constitutional violations. The Court first addresses whether Lombardo has adequately pled Section1983 liability on behalf of the Town and the Individual Defendants, and subsequently assesses the merits of Plaintiff's underlying claims.

A. Defendants' Liability Under Section 1983

Before turning to the substance of Lombardo's contentions, the Court considers whether the Complaint adequately alleges that Defendants could be held liable for the conduct complained of.

i. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Generally

Section 1983 provides, in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Section 1983 itself does not create substantive rights, it does provide "a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v....