The Honor able William K. Sessions I I I , United States District J udg e for the District of * Ver mont, sit ting by

desig nation. 1 08-3858-c v Roberts v. Ba

bkiewicz UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS

F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T

_____________________ August Term, 2008 (Argued: J uly

7, 2009 Dec ided: September 30, 2009)

Docke t No. 08-3858-c v

_____________________ Da le C. R ob e rt s, Plaintif f-Appellant , -v.- Jo e B a b k ie w ic z, Defendant-

Appellee

.

_______________________ BEF ORE: CAL AB RESI , HAL L , Circuit Judges , and SESSI ONS, District Judge
. *

______________________ Ap p ea l fr o ma gr an to f D ef en d an t -A p p el l ee ’s m o t i o nfo r j u d gm en to nth e p l ea d i n gs enter ed in the United States District Court for the District of Connec ticut (Thompson, J .). On appea l, Plainti ff- Appellant Roberts c halleng es the district cour t’s ruling that his malicious pr os e c uti on

c la im, a dv anc e d und e r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 , f a ils a s a matte r o f l aw b e c a

us e the state nolle prossed the a ssault char g e on the same day that Roberts pleade d g uilty to interfer ing w ith a police off icer and Roberts, ther efor e, had not shown unde r Connecticut law that the dismissal of the under lying c riminal offe nse re sulted in a “fa vorable termination.” F rom the re cord be fore us on a pp e a l it is unc le ar t

hat th e c ri min a l c ha

rg e that w a s n oll e d is ne c e ssa ri ly re late d to or

aro se fr om t he same c ir c ums tanc e s a s th e c ri min a l of fe ns e to whic h Ro be rt s p le a de d guil ty . We va c ate the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

and re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s opinion.

______________________ FOR PLAI

NTI FF -APPEL L ANT: J OHN R. WI L L I AMS, J ohn R. W illiams and Associates L L C, New Ha ven, CT.2

FOR DEF ENDAN T-APPEL L EE: SCOTT M. KARSTEN, Karsten, D orman & Tallberg , L L C, W est Har tford, CT.

______________________ PER CU RIAM : This is an appea l from a grant of D efe ndant-Appe llee Joe Babkie wicz’s motion for judgme nt on the pleading s entere d in the United States District Court for the D istrict of Connecticut (Thompson, J .). B eca use this matter come s to us on appeal f rom a judg ment on the pleading s, we re ly

on the complaint, the answ er, a ny written docume nts attache d to them, and any matter of which the cour t can take judicial notice for the fa ctual bac kg round of the c ase. See, e.g. , Faconti v. Potter , 242 Fe d. Appx. 775, 777 (2d Ci r. 2007) ( unpublished). On a pp e a l, P la int if

f- Ap pe lla nt D a le Rob e rt s c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin gthat hi s ma lic iou s p ro se c uti on

c la im, br ou g ht u

nd e r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 , f

a ils a s a matte r o f l aw b e c a

us e the state c ourt nolle prossed the a ssault char g e that wa s the basis for the malicious prosec ution claim on the same day

that Roberts also pleade d g uilty to interfer ing w ith a police off icer and Roberts, there fore , had not shown under Connecticut law that the dismiss al of the unde rlying criminal off

ense w as a “ favor able ter

mination.” Fr om the rec ord bef ore us on a

ppeal it is unclea

r whether the nolle prosequi of

the cr iminal charg e wa s nece ssarily related to or par

t of the dispositi on of the c riminal offe nse to which Rober ts pleaded guilty . We vacate the judg ment of the district court a

nd rema nd for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.3 BACK GR OUND On Dec ember

1, 2004, Dale Robe rts was a rre sted by the B loomfield, Connecticut Police Depa rtment on various c riminal and motor vehicle char g es. The r ecor d is silent as to the nature of these c harg es. In his complaint Roberts has alleg ed that while he was in custody , J oe Ba bkiewicz, a police of

fice r in the town of B loomfield, assaulted him and inflicted phy sical inj ur ie s w ith out c a

us e or jus tif ic atio n. Rob e rt s f

ur the r a lle g e d th at B a

bk ie wi c z the n f

a lse ly
acc used him of assaultinga police of fice r, a f elony , and maliciously

prepa red a false r eport of th atc h ar g e w h i c hw a s p r e s e n t e d t o th e p r o s e c u t i n gat t o r

n e y. On May 25, 2005, in the Superior Court at Ha rtford, Connec ticut the prosec uting attorney e n t e r e d a n o l l e p r o s e qu i w i thr e s p e c tt o th e c h ar g e o f a s s a u l t i n ga p o l i c e o f f i c e r . T h ats am e d ay, Roberts pleade d g uilty

to interfer ing w ith a police off icer on Dec ember

1, 2004, the date that he had alleg edly

assaulted Of

fice r B abkiewic z. Bec ause the rec ord conta ins only the guilty

plea sentenc ing doc ument, we r ely on the pleading s, the district court’s opinion, and the pa rties’ brie fs for the f actua l background of this ca se. In Dec ember

2007, Roberts broug ht a civil rig hts action ag ainst Ba bkiewicz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleg ing e x cessive f orce , false a

rre st, and malicious prosec ution. The complaint
asser ted that the cr iminal charg e wa s nolled beca use “it wa s appar ent from medic al evidenc e that the plaintiff wa s innocent of the c harg e.” Compl. ¶ 9. The district court g rante d Ba bkiewicz’s mot ion fo r j ud g me nt o n th e ple a din g s, fi nd ingthat th e e xce ssi ve fo rc e and fa lse arr e st c la ims
wer e bar red by the statute of limitations. As for the cla im of malicious prosecution, the district court took judicial notice of the Superior Court re cords showingthat the nolle prosequi oc curr ed on May 25, 2005, the same da

y as Roberts’s guilty

plea, a nd conclude d that the two cha rg es we re4

“appa rently related.” Roberts v. Babk iewicz , 563 F. Supp. 2d 358, 361 (D. Conn. 2008). Re a so nin gthat it

“ wo uld have to ‘ c on

jur e up un

ple a de d f a c ts, ’ i n o rd e r t o s ta

te a sc e na ri o in wh ic h th e no lle of

the a ssa ult c ha rg e wa s n ot i n e xch ang e fo r t he pla int if

f’ s p le a of g uil ty to Interfe ringwith an Off

icer ,” the district cour

t concluded that Roberts’s alleg ations did not sug g est a fa

vorable termination of the unde rlying c riminal offe nse and that Roberts’s malicious prosec ution claim failed a s a matter of law. Id. at3 6 1 (qu o t i n g Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 55 0 U .S. 54 4, 56 2 ( 20 07 )) . Ro be rt s a pp e a ls. DI SCU SSIO N We review de novo a

g ra nt o f a jud g me nt o n th e ple a din g s und e r F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e 12(c ). Nic ho las v . G oo rd , 430 F.3d 652, 658 n.8 ( 2d Cir. 2005). “In order to preva il on a § 1983 claim ag ainst a state a ctor for malicious prosec ution, a plaintiff must show a violation of his rig hts under the F ourth Amendment, a nd establish the elements of a

malicious prosec ution claim under state la w.” Fulton v. Robinson , 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2002). To pre vail on a malicious prose cution claim under Connecticut law, a plaintiff must prove the f ollowing e lements: (1) the de fenda nt initi ated or

continued cr iminal proce eding s ag ainst the plaintiff; (2) the criminal proc eedingterminated in fa vor of the pla intiff; (3) “ the def

endant a cted without proba ble ca use”; a nd (4) “ the def

endant a cted with malice .” McH ale v. W .B.S. Corp. , 446 A.2d 815, 817 (Conn. 1982). A n o l l e p ro s equ i i s a “ un i l at er al ac tb y a p ro s ec u t o r, wh i ch en d s th e p en d i n g p ro ce ed i n gs without an acquittal and w ithout placing the defe ndant in jeopar dy .” Cislo v. Ci ty of Shelton , 692 A.2d 1255, 1260 n.9 (Conn. 1997) (inter nal quotations and citations omitted). Under Conne c tic ut l aw, a

no lle pr os e qu i te rm inate s th e pr os e c uti on , b ut t he pr os e c uti nga

uth or ity is5

permitted to initiate a newaction ag ainst the defe ndant within the statute of limitations. C onn. Practice Book § 39- 31. A nolle prosequi may not be enter ed if the a ccuse d objects and de mands either a trial or dismissal. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56b. Criminal charg es that have been nolled a re era sed thirteen months af ter e ntry of the nolle prose qui. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(c ). Connecticut law a dopts a liberal unde rstandingof a f avora ble termination for

the purposes of a

malicious prosec ution claim. Se e Se e v . G os se lin , 48 A.2d 560, 561 (Conn. 1946) (“It is not necessar

y that the ac cused should have been a cquitted. It is sufficient if he w as discharg ed without a trial unde r circ umstances amounting to an a bandonment of the prosec ution . . . .”); Colli v. Kamins , 468 A.2d 295, 297 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1983) (“ An aba ndonment of a
c ri min a l pr oc e e din g , s o f

ar a s th e pla int if

f’ s r ig ht t o p re va il i s c on c e rn e d, is the e qu iva le nt o f i ts su c c e ssf ul t e rm inatio n. ” ); se e als o DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven , 597 A.2d 807, 820 (Conn. 19 91 ) ( “ [W]e h ave ne ve r r e qu ir e d a pla int if f i n a ve xati ou s su it a c tio n to pr ov e a fa vo ra ble termination either by

pointing to an a djudication on the merits in his favor or by showing
a ff ir mativ e ly that th e c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he te rm inatio n in dic ate d h is i nn oc e nc e or no nli a bil ity , s o lon ga s th e pr oc e e din gha s te rm inate d w ith out c on sid e ra tio n. ” ); Ru sso v . Ci ty

of H ar tfo rd , 1 84 F. Supp. 2d 169, 186 (D. Conn. 2002) (dete rmining that the Connecticut Supreme Court c onsiders “the bur den to establish the ter mination prong a minimal one, with littl e empha sis on whether the actua l termination was fa vorable to the plaintiff.”)
. The United States District Court for the District of Connec ticut has rea ched dif fer ent conclusions on whethe r a nolle pr osequi bars a claim of fa lse arr est or malicious prose cution. What th e se c a se s h ave in c omm on ho we ve r i s th at th e y

we re a dju dic ate d a

t summa ry jud g me nt, and the outcome depende d on whether fac ts material to the re asons for the nolle prosequi6

rema ined in dispute. See, e .g. , Lup ina c c i v . P izi gh e lli , 588 F. Supp. 2d 242, 249 (D. Conn. 2008) (summary judgme nt denied bec ause de position t estimony provided e vidence that the nolle was
no t c on dit ion e d o n a

ny be ne fi t to state or

vic tim ); Cla rk

v . D owt y , No. 3:05-CV-1345 (WWE), 2007 WL2022045 (D. Conn. J uly 9, 2007) (summary

judgme nt gr anted be cause nolle prosequi
wa s c on dit ion e d u

po n c omp le tio n o f t

he ra py ); Ho lm an v . Ca sc io , 390 F. Supp. 2d 120, 125 (D. Conn. 2005) (summary

judgme nt denied bec ause de position t estimony provided e vidence that
no lle s w e re no t e nte re d a s p art of a ple a ba rg a in) ; W als h v . S ou sa , No. Civ. A. 3:01CV1872, 20 04 WL71 71 69 (D . Co nn . M a r. 25 , 2 00 4) (s umm ary

jud g me nt gra

nte d) ; Ga laz o v . Ci ty

of W ate rb ur y , 303 F. Supp. 2d 213, 218-19 (D . Conn. 2004) (malicious prosec ution claim survived
summa ry jud g me nt) ; Bi rd

sa ll v . Ci ty

of H ar tfo rd , 249 F. Supp. 2d 163, 171 (D. Conn. 2003) (s umm ary jud g me nt gra

nte d b e c a us e the c ha

rg e s w e re dis mis se d in

e xch ang e fo r a

c ha ri ta ble contribution). Th e ma jor ity of c a se s f ro m Co nn e c tic ut c ou

rt s inte rp re t Co nn e c tic ut l aw s o th at a no lle prosequi satisfies the “ favor able ter mination” element a s long a s the aba ndonment of the prosec ution was not based on a n arr ang ement with the def endant. See H

olman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 123 (“ The majority

of dec isions applying Conne cticut law . . . hold that a nolle of the cr iminal char g e may

still permit the plaintiff to satisfy [t he fa vorable termination] element if the circ umstances of

the nolle satisfy

the Se e v . G os se lin test of an a bandonment of pr osecution without request fr om or by an ar rang ement with [the defenda nt] .” (inter

nal quotations omitt ed))
. Un de r C onne c tic ut l aw, a s Holman corr ectly stated, “the mere alleg ation of a nolle in a complaint may be enough to withstand a motion to di smiss under Fe d.R.Civ.P .12(b)( 6).” Id. at 124.7

Howeve r, “a

nolle will preclude a subseque nt case for malicious prose cution when it was ma de as par t of a plea barg ain . . . .” Id. at 123-24. The district cour

t here conclude d that the assault cha rg e ag ainst Roberts that was nolled on the same date as the guilty plea wa s “appa

rently” par

t of Roberts’s plea

ag ree ment by

which he plea ded guilty

to interfer ing w ith a police off icer
. Ro be rts , 563 F. Supp. 2d at 361. Notwithstanding the temporal proximit y of the two c harg es and the subsequent guilty plea to one and the nolle pr osequi of the other enter ed on the same day , there is nothing in the re cord that proves the a ssault char g e wa s nolled as par t of the bar g ain struck. Acc eptingthe fa ctual alleg ations of the complaint as true , Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 1 29 S. Ct
. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) , the prosec uting attorney nolled the cha

rg e “be cause it was appa

rent fr om me dic a l e vid e nc e that th e pla int if f w a s inno c e nt o f t

he c ha rg e .” Dr awi nga ll r e a so na ble inf e re nc e s f ro m th e se fa c ts i n f

avo r o f t he pla int if

f, he ha s st ate d a

pla us ibl e c la im f

or re lie f, to wit, that the prosec uting attorney terminated the prosec ution based on Roberts’s innoce nce a nd not beca use of a neg otiated plea or

other c onsideration. Without additi onal fa cts explaining the circ umstances of

Roberts’s initial arre st on Dece mber 1, 2004 a nd of his subsequent guilty plea and the nolle pr osequi, both entere d on May 25, 2005, we must ac cept Rober ts’s alleg ation that the assault cha

rg e brought by

Offic er B abkiewic z was nolled beca use medica l evidence proved his innocence
. Be cause Roberts has ade quately pled a c laim for re lief that is plausible on its face , i.e. , he has pled fa cts which, if take n as true tog ether with all rea sonable infe renc es, would lea d to the
c on c lus ion

that th e no lle pr os e qu i w a s a fa vo ra ble te rm inatio n und e r C onne c tic ut l aw, we mus t va c ate the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

and re mand the c a se fo r f

ur the r p ro c e e din g s.8 CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns state d h e re in, the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is v a c ate d, and

the c a se is
rema nded for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.