The Hon. L ewis A. Ka plan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District * of Ne w York, sitting by

desig nation. 09

- 44 66

- cv G l ei s v. B uehl er 

### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS

F OR TH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT SU MM AR

Y O RD ER

RUL I NGS BY SU M M A R Y O RDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY OR D E R F I L E D ON OR A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G OV E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E OF A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D OCUM E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S COURT , A P ART Y M US T CI T E EI T HER T HE F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DATA B AS E ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.

At a stat ed ter m of the United State s Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United States Court hous e, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of New Yo r k, o n t he 26 dayof A pr il, two th ous and t e n. th 1 2 PRES ENT: 3 RA L PH K . WI NT ER, 4 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 5 Circuit Judges , 6 L EWI S A. KAPL AN, * 7 District Judge. 8

__________________________________________ 9 10 NA

NC Y G L EI S, 11 12 Plaintif f-Appellant , 13 14 v. 09-4466-c v 15 16 J OHN B UEHL ER, SEAN COONEY, CI TY OF STAMFORD, 17 18 Defendants-A ppellee s. 19

__________________________________________ 202 1 FOR APPEL L ANT: Nanc y Gleis, pr o s e , A c ton , M A 2 3 FOR APPEL L EES: J ames V. Minor, Assistant Corpor ation Couns el , C i t y o f Stamford 4 L aw De partment, (Michae l D. L arobina , Direc tor of L eg al Aff airs, on 5 the br ie f) , St amf or d, CT 6 7 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the District of Connec ticut 8 (Mar

tinez, M.J. ). 9 UP ON DUE CONSIDER AT ION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 10 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED

. 11 Plaintiff-Appellant Na ncy Gleis, pr o s e , appeals from a Ma rch 29, 2007 judg ment and a 1 2 M ar c h2 6 , 2 0 0 7 o r d e r o f th e U n it e d St ate s D is tr ic t Co urt f o r th e D is tr ic t o f

Co n n e c ti c u t ( M arti n e z, 13 M.J. ) , g r an t i n gs u m m ar y j u d g m e n ti nf

av o r o f D e f e n d an t s - Ap p e l l e e s J o hn

B u e h l e r a n d S e a nC o o n e y, 14 me mbe rs of

the Stamf

or d, Conne c tic ut p oli c e de pa rt men t, and

the City of Stamf or d ( c oll e c tiv e ly 15 “ Defendan ts ”) and dis mis sin ghe r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 c omp la int a sse rt ingc la ims fo r f

a lse arr e st, 16 malicious prosec ution, f ailure to “ supervise and interve ne,” due proce ss, conspirac y , and violations 17 of Connecticut state law. In brief, G leis had an a ltercation with Ange la McKinley in a S top & Shop 18 parkinglot on May 10, 2002, during wh i ch , M cK inley alleg ed, Gleis shouted pr ofanities at 19 McKinley an d h er d au ghter a nd drove he r ca

r at the Mc Kinley s as if intendingto run them over. 20 M cK i n l ey

filed a swor

n aff idavit detailing the incident with Def endant B uehler

of the Stamford, 21 Connecticut police. Tw o day s later, Gle is faxed a letter to De fenda nt Cooney , a Sergeant i n the 22 police depa

rtment, disputing McK inley ’s desc ription of the event; she also stated “I . . . contac ted 23 Stop & Shop and re quested that no video ta pes of the parking are a nea r the outdoor plants be era sed. 24 (S top & Sho p h a s tw o c ame ra s in t hat area ou tsi de the sto re .) .” Ap pe lla nt’ s App . 1 8. In h is 25 application for a wa rra nt for Gleis’s a

rre st, Def endant Buehle r st ated that he rece ived Gleis’s fax and3 1 that it

a dmi tte d c e rt a in d e ta ils of the inc ide nt, bu t he d id n ot m e nti on Gl e is’ s r e fe re nc e to 2 surveillance tapes. A w arr ant was issued f or Gleis’s a

rre st on Ma y 2 1 , 2 002, but Gleis was not 3 arr ested until October 23, 2002, sever al m onths afte r t he surveillance tapes wer e destroy ed by Stop 4 & Shop in the ordina ry course . The c riminal char g es ag ainst Gl ei s — risk of injury to a child, 5 se c on d d e g re e a ssa ult , a nd se c on d de g re e br e a c h of the pe a c e — we re dis mis se d w ithpr e jud ic e in 6 De c e mbe r 2 00 4. Gl e is s ub se qu e ntl y br ou g ht t he pr e se nt a c tio n. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty 7 with the rema ining f acts, the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, a

nd the issues prese nted on appe al. 8 As a pre liminary matter, beca use Gleis does not challeng e on appe al the mag istrate judg e’s 9 denial of her motion for rec onsideration, we need not r eview that decision. See LoSacc o v. City of 10 Mi dd

le tow n , 7 1 F .3 d 8 8, 92 -9 3 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 5) . M or e ov e r, a lth ou g h G le is on app eal a sk s u s to 11 consider he r motion to vacate her c ase’ s ref ere nce to a

mag istrate judg e, Gleis did notfile a notice 12 of appe al of the ma g istrate judg e’s order reje cting this motion below; conseque ntly that order is not 13 be fo re us on

a pp e a l. 14 We r e vie w gra nts of su mma ry jud g me nt de novo and a sk wh e the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly 15 conclude d that there was no g enuine issue as to a ny materia l f

act and the moving pa

rty was e ntitled 16 to judgme nt as a matter of la w. See Miller v. W

olpoff & Abrams, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 17 2003). In deter mining whether ther e ar e g enuine issues of material fa ct, we a re “ require d to resolve 18 all am b i guities and draw all permissible infer ence s in favor of the par ty ag ainst whom summary 19 judgme nt is sought.” Te rry v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 6 F. 3 d

1 2 8 , 1 3 7 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Stern v. Trs. of 20 C

o l u m b ia Un iv . in th e C i t

yo f N

. Y. , 131 F.3d 305, 312 ( 2d Cir. 1997) (interna l quotation marks 21 omitted). 22 1. Gl e is’ s F a lse Ar re st C la im4 1 Gleis’s fa lse arr est claim is g overne d by Connecticut law, see D avis v. Rodriguez , 364 F.3d 2 424, 433 (2d Ci r. 2004), which “ place s the burden of provingan unlawf

ul arre st on the plaintiff,” 3 Ru sso v . Ci ty

of B rid ge po rt , 4 79 F .3 d. 19 6, 20 3 ( 2d Cir. 20 07 ). “[I ]n Co nn e c tic ut, a fa lse arr e st 4 claim ca

nnot lie when the c halleng ed ar res t wa s s up ported by

probable cause .” Id. Normally the 5 issuance of

a wa rra nt by a neutral mag istrate cr eate s a pre sumption t hat there was proba ble ca use. 6 See, e .g. , W

alc zyk v . R io , 496 F.3d 139, 155- 56 (2d Cir. 200 7 ). To rebut this presumption, the 7 plaintiff m u st show that “the off icer submitt ing the probable cause aff idavit ‘knowing ly

and 8 intenti o n a ll y , o r w it h r e c k le s s d is r e g ar d f

o r th e tr u th , ma d e a f

a ls e s tate me n t in h is a f

f id av it ’ or 9 omitted material information, and that such fa lse or omitted information was ‘ nece ssary to the 10 finding of proba ble ca use.’” Soares v. State of Conn. , 8 F. 3 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 0 (2 d C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Golino 11 v. Ci t

y o f New Haven , 950 F.2d 864, 870- 71 (2d Cir. 1991)). “ An ar restingoffice r advised of a 12 crime by

a per son who claims to be the victim, and who ha s signe d a complaint or infor m at i on 13 char g ing some one with the cr ime, has proba ble cause t o eff

ect an arr est absent c ircumstance s that 14 raise doubts a s to the victim’s verac ity .” Singe r v . F ulton Cou nty

Sh e rif f , 63 F.3d 110, 119 ( 2d Cir. 15 1995). Ge nera lly , “once an off icer has a rea sonable basis for believing there is proba ble ca use, he 1 6 is not r e qu ir e d to e xp lo r e an d e li mi n ate e v e r y th e o r e ti c a ll y p la

u s ib le c la im o f inn o c e n c e bef ore 17 makingan ar

rest.” Cur le

yv . V ill . o f Su ffe rn , 2 6 8 F. 3 d 6 5 , 7 0 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g R i c c i u t iv . N

. Y. 18 City T

r a n s i t A u t h. , 124 F.3d 123, 128 ( 2d Cir. 1997)) (inter nal quotation marks and a lteration 19 omitted). 20 Gleis contends that he r Oc tober 23, 2002 a rre st pursuant to an ar re s t war rant wa s not 21 supported by

probable cause beca

use Off icer Bue hler knowing ly

or rec klessly

omitted any

ref ere nce 22 to the surveillance tapes in the a ffidavit he f iled with the war

rant a pplication and that this omissi on5 1 wa s “ ne c e ssa

ry to t he fi nd ing of pr ob a

ble c a us e .” We dis a g re e . B ue hle r ha d pro ba ble c a us e to a rr e st 2 Gl e is ba se d on Mc Ki nle y ’s sw or n state me nt de sc ri bin g the inc ide nt. Th e su bs tanc e of

the fax Gle is 3 sent to the Stamford Police De parme nt — which merely asser ted t hat s urveillanc e tapes exi sted — 4 simply

constit u t ed a competing ve rsion of the re levant eve nts, which Def endants we re r equire d 5 neither to c onsider nor inve stigate be fo re seekingan ar rest wa rra nt. Nor wa s the omission of any 6 me nti on

of the surv e ill anc e ta

pe s fr om the wa

rr ant a pp lic atio n “ ne c e ssa

ry to t he fi nd ingof

pr ob a ble 7 cause .” Soares , 8 F

. 3 d at 9 2 0

. T h e c o n te n ts o f

th e s ur v e il la n c e ta p e s , a s d e s c r ib e d b y

G le is ’ s f a x, 8 wer e not “plainly exculpatory

evidenc e” known to the Def endants at the time of the ar rest. Pa ne tta 9 v. Crowley , 4 60 F .3 d 3 88 , 3 95 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ). Th e re fo re we c on c lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly 10 g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

Def endants on this claim. 11 2. Gl e is’ s Re ma ini ngCla ims 12 Af

te r o ur ind e pe nd e nt r e vie w o f t he reco rd , w e c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly 13 g rante d summary judgme nt to the Defe ndants on Gleis’s re maining c laims, and we a ffirm the 14 judgme nt as to those claims for substantially the s ame reasons as articulated i n the mag istrate judg e’s 15 thoroug h and well-re asoned opinion. See Gle is v. Bu e hle r, e t al

. , No. 3:04CV2217 (D. Conn. Mar. 16 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). T o the extent Gleis argues that De fenda nts violated her due proce ss rig hts by 1 7 un r e a s o n a

b ly d e la yin gth e e xe c u ti o no f

th e w ar r an t, it is w e ll e s ta

b li s h e d th at “ to p r o s e c ute a 18 de fe nd ant f

oll ow inginv e sti g ativ e de lay do e s n ot d e pr ive him

of du e pr oc e ss, e ve n if hi s d e fe ns e 1 9 mi g h t h av e b e e n s o me w h at p r e ju d ic e d b y th e la

p s e o f time.” Un i t ed Stat es v. Lovasc o , 4 31 U. S. 20 78 3, 79 1 ( 19 77 ). Gl e is h a s p ro du c e d n o evi den c e ind ic atin gthat po lic e de lay e d s ole ly “ to g a in 21 tactica l advantag e” ove r her , United States v. Marion , 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971), a nd has not raise d 22 a persua sive argument reg arding why any “dela y ” in a rre sting he r bef

ore June 8, 2002, the day

the6 1 surveillance tapes we re de stroy ed, wa s unrea sonable. 2 We have c are fully considere d Appellant’s rema ining arguments on appea l a nd conclude that 3 they

are without merit. For the f oreg oing r easons, the judg ment of the district cour t is hereby 4 AF F IRM ED

. 5 6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 8 9 10