Quinghe Liu v. Tangney

1

QUINGHE LIU a/k/a KING LIU, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TANGNEY, and AILING ZHOU Defendants.

No. 3:19-CV-894(OAW)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 18, 2022

RECOMMENDED RULING ON DEFENDANT JOHN TANGNEY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF. NO. 33)

HON S. DAVE VATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Quinghe Liu (hereinafter, “Liu” or “plaintiff”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against Norwich Police Officer John Tangney (hereinafter, “Officer Tangney”) and Ailing Zhou (hereinafter, “Zhou”) (collectively with Officer Tangney, the “defendants”), alleging malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Doc. No. 28, ¶10. Plaintiff also claims that defendants violated his right to be free form malicious prosecution under Connecticut common law. Doc. No. 28, ¶11. Pending before the Court is defendant Officer Tangney's Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. No. 33. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that defendant Officer Tangney's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33) be GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

This case arises out of the arrest of Liu pursuant to an arrest warrant signed by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Timothy Bates on August 24, 2015, charging Liu with assault in the third degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-61 and disorderly conduct in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-182(a)(1). The following undisputed facts are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56(a) Statements and exhibits in the record.^[1]

On August 22, 2015, Officer Tangney reported to the Mohegan Sun Tribal Police headquarters in Uncasville, Connecticut, for a domestic abuse call. Doc. No. 33-2, at 1, 16. On arrival, Officer Tangney interviewed defendant Zhou with the assistance of a Mandarin Chinese interpreter, who was a co-worker of Zhou's at Mohegan Sun. Id. Zhou reported that she and defendant Liu lived together, had been in a dating relationship for over eleven years, and had a daughter in common. Id., at 1-2, 16. She stated that six days earlier, on August 16, 2015, at approximately 12:00 p.m., she was in her apartment in Norwich, Connecticut, baking pastries. Id., at 1, 16. Zhou then served one of the pastries to defendant Liu, who became angry over the size of the pastry. Id., at 2, 16. Liu began to argue with Zhou, telling her the pastry was too large and that it was wasteful to bake something so large. Id. As the argument continued, Liu began to punch and pinch Zhou's arms. Id. Zhou stated that she fled to the bedroom, got in the bed and covered herself with a blanket, but that she was followed by Liu. Id. According to Officer Tangney's arrest warrant affidavit, Zhou reported that Liu pulled her out of the bed by her leg, dragged her across the bedroom floor and pinched and punched her upper legs. Id. In his affidavit, Officer Tangney stated that “[t]he victim was unable to estimate how many times the accused assaulted her or how long the assault lasted.” Doc. No. 33-2, at 16.

During the interview, the interpreter showed Officer Tangney photographs of plaintiff's injuries, specifically bruising on the front and back of her left arm and on both her upper thighs. Doc. No. 33-2, at 17. During the interview, Officer Tangney did not observe any bruising on defendant Zhou's arms. Doc. No. 33-2, at 48-49, 54. Officer Tangney did not request an opportunity to examine Zhou's legs for any bruising. Doc. No. 33-2, at 68-69, 71.^[2] According to Officer Tangney's warrant affidavit, “[Zhou] then stated that she did not want the accused to be arrested” and became visibly upset when Officer Tangney told her that, based on her account of the assault and the nature of her injuries, he would need to interview Liu and would likely seek an arrest warrant for Liu. Doc. No. 33-2, at 17. Zhou continued to ask Officer Tangney not to pursue an arrest of Liu and to “give him a last warning.” Id. After Officer Tangney expressed concern for Zhou's safety and that of her eleven-year-old daughter and stated that he would need to investigate further, Zhou began to cry. Officer Tangney believed, based on his training and experience, that Zhou's reaction was due to the fact “that the Asian culture is very reluctant to pursue criminal complaints.” Id. When Officer Tangney explored whether Zhou had any alternative living arrangement, Zhou explained that that she had no family or friends with whom she could stay and that she was not comfortable with any other available options. Id.

On August 22, 2015, at approximately 2:27 p.m., Officer Tangney and a colleague went to Zhou's residence in Norwich to interview Liu. Id. Prior to his arrival at the residence, Zhou and her daughter had arrived home, despite Officer Tangney's request that they remain at Mohegan Sun while he interviewed Liu. Id. Officer Tangney asked Zhou and her daughter to step outside the home with his colleague so he could speak to Liu alone. Id. Officer Tangney then interviewed Liu in the kitchen. Id. According to the arrest warrant affidavit, Liu “stated that he and [Zhou] had been verbally arguing on the afternoon of August 16, 2015, but stated that he did not hit the victim.” Id. When Officer Tangney asked how Zhou had gotten the multiple bruises on her legs and arms, Liu stated “[s]he gets bruised like that all the time. I think it is a medical condition.” Id. As Officer Tangney asked additional questions about Zhou's bruises and the incident, Liu became increasingly agitated and raised his voice, stating “this is an abuse of police power” and “if you think I did this arrest me, you have no proof.” Id.

Based upon the photographs and the statements by Zhou and Liu, Officer Tangney believed there was probable cause for an arrest warrant and submitted an arrest warrant application alleging violations for assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct to Connecticut Superior Court Judge Timothy Bates. Id. In the warrant affidavit, Officer Tangney stated that he viewed photographs of Zhou's injuries, but did not mention his observation that there were no bruises on Zhou's arms when he interviewed her on August 22, 2015, six days after the alleged assault, and that he had not examined her legs during the interview. Doc. No. 33-2, at 16-17, 68-69, 71; Doc. No. 34-1, at 2. Judge Bates reviewed and signed the arrest warrant for Liu on August 24, 2015. Doc. No. 33-2, at 17. Pursuant to the arrest warrant, Norwich Police arrested Liu the same day. Id., at 3. On April 26, 2017, Liu was tried solely on the charge of third degree assault and a superior court jury returned a not guilty verdict. Id.

On June 10, 2019, Liu commenced this action against Officer Tangney and Zhou. In his Amended Complaint dated June 23, 2020, Liu alleges that, in his warrant application, defendant Tangney “maliciously and intentionally omitted the crucial fact that, although Zhou claimed the assault had taken place only very recently, she exhibited no bruising whatsoever.” Doc. No. 28, ¶7. Accordingly, plaintiff claims that defendant Tangney violated his right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in violation of the common law of the State of Connecticut. Id., ¶10-11.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party can show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Vivenzio v. City of Syracuse, 611 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 2010). In making such a determination, a court examines the evidence in the light most favorable to, and draws all inferences in favor of, the non-movant. Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351, 354 (2d Cir. 2003). A genuine issue of material fact is one which “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and as to which “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Lazard Freres & Co. v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 1531, 1535 (2d Cir. 1997). The inquiry conducted by the Court when reviewing a motion for summary judgment focuses on “whether there is the need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. Accordingly, the moving party satisfies its burden under Rule 56 “by showing . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).

Once the moving party has met its burden, in order to defeat the motion, the non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, and present such evidence as would allow a jury to find in his favor. Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000). “[T]he party opposing summary judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of his pleading” to establish a disputed fact. Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). The non-moving party must point to “sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted). “[M]ere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts” will not suffice. Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation...