Muschette ex rel. A.M. v. Town of W. Hartford

AUDLEY and JUDITH MUSCHETTE on behalf of A.M., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD and PAUL W. GIONFRIDDO, Defendants.

3:13-cv-1337(RNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

March 25, 2020

RULING AND ORDER

This excessive force case brought against a Connecticut police officer and his municipal employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has been remanded following an interlocutory appeal from a ruling by Judge Eginton denying the officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See Muschette v. Gionfriddo, 910 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2018). In accordance with the Second Circuit's decision on the appeal, judgment will be entered in favor of the officer on the § 1983 claim, the Court of Appeals having determined that qualified immunity applies. Dismissal of the § 1983 claim does not resolve the case, however, because state law claims remain: specifically, claims against the officer for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence; and a claim against the officer's municipal employer for indemnification. Pending is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants with regard to the state law claims.

Because only the state law claims remain to be adjudicated, the question arises whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over these claims as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is a discretionary decision informed by "the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cahill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). When, as here, only state law claims remain to be adjudicated, "the balance of factors will 'usually' point toward a declination." Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 118 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7); see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3567.3 ("As a general matter, a court will decline supplemental jurisdiction if the underlying [federal] claims are dismissed before trial.").

As the case comes to me, it includes a scheduling order entered by Judge Eginton stating that "[f]or the sake of efficiency, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining claims." ECF No. 159. Judge Eginton entered his order prior to the defendants' filing of the pending motion for summary judgment. Neither party has asked me to reconsider whether exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims continues to be appropriate. However, after considering the parties' arguments in connection with thepending motion, and the authorities cited in their respective briefs, I think the motion requires resolution of unsettled issues of state law, which tips the balance in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (authorizing district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where a claim "raises a novel or complex issue of state law"); Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981, 990 (7^th Cir. 2008) (federal district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims unless "it is clearly apparent how the state claims are to be decided"). Because of the length of time this case has been pending, and in view of Judge Eginton's previous order, I set forth my reasons for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in more detail below.

Discussion

Plaintiffs Audley and Judith Muschette bring this action on behalf of their son, A.M., who was a student at the American School for the Deaf in West Hartford when this action was filed. The case arises from an incident at the school in 2013, when A.M. was twelve. West Hartford Police Officer Paul Gionfriddo went to the School in response to a call reporting that a student was out of control. On arriving at the scene, Officer Gionfriddo approached A.M. and undertook to secure him with the assistance of another officer. Officer Gionfriddo has testifiedthat he believed A.M. was refusing to put down a large rock, which could be used as a weapon against the officers and others, despite the officers' repeated warnings to A.M. that unless he let go of the rock he would be tasered. Officer Gionfriddo relied on a staff member at the School to communicate his warnings to A.M. using American Sign Language. After A.M. failed to put down the rock, he was tasered once. According to Officer Gionfriddo's testimony, A.M. was still noncompliant, so he tasered him once more, thereby enabling the other officer to secure A.M. with handcuffs. Plaintiffs contend that Officer Gionfriddo's use of the taser on their son, especially the second time, provides a basis for compensatory and punitive damages under state tort law.

In their motion for summary judgment, Officer Gionfriddo and the Town argue that the Second Circuit's decision granting qualified immunity to the officer operates to preclude the state law claims. Plaintiffs correctly respond that the standard applied by the Second Circuit in deciding the issue of qualified immunity differs from the standard that applies to the issue of the officer's liability under state law. The federal qualified immunity standard applied by the Second Circuit in this case asks whether an officer's use of force was clearly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment such that no competent officer could think the challenged use of force was lawful. See Malley v. Briggs, 475U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"). The standard that applies to the issue of the officer's liability under state law is found in the state statute governing justification for an officer's use of force, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-22(b).¹ Under this statute, an officer is justified in using force only if he (1) actually believes his use of force is reasonably necessary [hereinafter "the subjective component"]; and (2) his subjective belief is objectively reasonable [hereinafter "the objective component"]. See State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 807 A.2d 500, 515 (2002) ("We conclude that the test for evaluating self-defense claims pursuant to § 53a-22 is a subjective-objective test," in which the jury is first required "to determine whether the defendant honestly believed" his use of force was necessarybefore determining "whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the defendant's circumstances"); see also Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 369 (2d Cir. 2018) (noting that an officer's subjective belief is "an element . . . in the state-law concept of justification," citing § 53a-22(b)); Huaman v. Tinsley, No. 3:13-cv-484 (MPS), 2017 WL 4365155, at *10 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2017) (noting that an officer's use of force did not fall within § 53a-22(b) because the officer "had no intention of making an arrest" when using force and therefore used "force he did not reasonably believe was necessary to make an arrest").

Given these diverging standards, I agree with plaintiffs that the Second Circuit's decision granting qualified immunity to Officer Gionfriddo does not necessarily foreclose the state law claims. The Second Circuit determined that a reasonable officer in Officer Gionfriddo's position could believe both: (1) that A.M. was ignoring the officer's repeated warnings to put down the rock; and (2) that in such a situation, use of the taser to secure A.M. was permitted by the Fourth Amendment. With regard to the second deployment of the taser, the Court determined that a reasonable officer could believe both: (1) that A.M. continued to pose a risk to the safety of the officers who were attempting to secure him, and (2) that a second deployment of the taser was therefore lawful. But the SecondCircuit was not asked to decide, and did not decide, whether (1) Officer Gionfriddo actually believed his use of the taser was reasonably necessary to secure A.M. (either initially or when he used it the second time), or (2) whether his belief was reasonable under § 53a-22(b). Accordingly, the legal sufficiency of the state law claims remains to be determined.

Whether the state law claims are adequately supported to defeat summary judgment turns out to be a matter of some complexity. Dealing first with the subjective component of § 53a-22(b), which gets the most attention in the parties' briefs, the parties seem to agree that if an officer has a subjective belief that her use of force is reasonably necessary, but her belief is objectively unreasonable, she is potentially liable for a negligent assault and battery. The parties sharply disagree, however, about what happens when the opposite is true - if the officer uses what is later determined to be objectively reasonable force, but does so without believing it to be reasonably necessary. Defendants seem to suggest that an officer cannot be held liable for an objectively reasonable use of force regardless of her motive or intent. Plaintiffs argue that even an objectively reasonable use of force is actionable if the officer did not believe it was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Plaintiffs' argument comports with the ordinary meaning of the words in § 53a-22(b), as well as the case law cited above recognizing that the statute includes a subjective component, so I think their argument is correct. In this respect, Connecticut law differs from the law of New York, which includes no subjective component. See Tompkins v. City of New York, 50 Fed. Supp.3d 426, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)("New York courts analyze . . . battery claims against police using the same [objective] standard applicable to excessive force cases under Section 1983."); see also Girbes-Pierce v. City of New York, 2019 WL 1522631, *7 (E.D.N.Y. April 9, 2019)(officer's use of pepper spray supported award of damages under both state law and § 1983).

Case law provides little guidance on the standard to...