Date: 07-27-2023

Case Style:

Jermaine Felciano v. Town of East Harford, et al.

Case Number: 3:18-CV-1932

Judge: Omar A. Williams

Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph Burns and Rebecca M. Harris

Defendant's Attorney: Katherine E. Rule

Description: New Haven, Connecticut civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants.

Jermaine Feliciano (“Mr. Feliciano” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against the Town of East Hartford (“the town” or “the municipality”), Officers Jared Richards, Lisa Larocque, Adam Aborn, Robert “Scott” Jones, David Choquette, and Todd Mona (all “Officer” followed by their respective surnames), Lieutenants Christopher Connelly, Michael DeMaine, Todd Hanlon, and Javier Rosario (all “Lt.” followed by their respective surnames), Sergeants Steven Camp, and Craig Browning (both “Sgt.” followed by their respective surnames), Deputy Chiefs Robert Davis, Jr., and Mack Hawkins (both “Dep. Chief” followed by their respective surnames), and Chief of Police Scott M. Sansom (“Chief Sansom”) (all Lt., Sgt., Dep. Chief, and Chief Defendants collectively “Supervisory Defendants”). Mr. Feliciano raises various federal and state claims stemming from his arrest on November 28, 2016.

The supervisory defendants and the municipality have moved for summary judgment on the ground that the undisputed facts do not give rise to actionable claims against them. For the reasons stated herein, the defendants' Motion, ECF No. 100, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTS

The following facts are taken primarily from the parties' Local Rule 56(a) Statements of Fact. See Defendants' L.R. 56(a)(1) Statement., ECF No. 100-2 (“Def. Stmt.”); Plaintiff's L.R. 56(a)(2)(i) Statement., ECF No. 102 (“Pl. Stmt.”); and Plaintiff's L.R. 56(a)(2)(ii) Statement. of Additional Facts, ECF No. 102 at 14-36 (“Pl. Addl. Stmt.”). All ambiguities in the record are construed in Plaintiff's favor. All facts are undisputed, unless indicated otherwise:

Chief Sansom began serving in his role as Chief of Police for the EHPD in 2014. ECF No. 100-2 ¶ 36. Plaintiff states that “Chief Sansom's responsibilities include reviewing and approving policies of the East Hartford Police Department.” Pl. Addl. Stmt., ECF No. 102 ¶ 96.

On November 28, 2016, Officers Richards and Choquette were dispatched to an apartment on Silver Lane, in East Hartford, Connecticut, in response to a complaint of a dispute.[1] Def. Stmt., ECF No. 100-2 ¶ 1. Upon the officers' arrival, they observed Plaintiff who ran from them. Id.[2] According to Plaintiff, while arresting[3] him on that date, Officers Richards and Choquette subjected him to excessive force, and failed to intervene in order to prevent the use of such force. Id. ¶ 2. He also claims Defendants Richards, Choquette, Larocque, Aborn, Jones, Mona, DeMaine, and Connelly denied him medical attention during his time at the East Hartford Police Department (“EHPD”). Id. ¶ 3. None of the Supervisory Defendants were named in the excessive force or failure to intervene counts, and Lts. DeMaine and Connelly were the only supervisors named in the claim for denial of medical attention as they were the only supervisory defendants present at the EHPD at the time. Id. ¶¶ 4, 5. The parties agree that none of the supervisory defendants were present during Plaintiff's arrest. Id. ¶ 4.

In his Statement of Additional Facts, Plaintiff claims to have been “beaten by Officers Richards and Choquette after he was placed in handcuffs,” ECF No. 102 ¶ 4, to have expressed (in lock up at the EHPD) that he was in pain, id. ¶¶ 5, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 31, 33, and to have requested medical attention, id. ¶¶ 8, 11-13, 15, 26, 31, 33. According to Plaintiff, he required assistance to sit upright and to change his clothing, id. ¶¶ 5-6, had trouble walking and standing upright for a booking photo, id. ¶ 17, and spit blood on the cell floor, id. ¶¶ 19-20, 23-25.[4]

Plaintiff further highlights Lt. Connelly's testimony that on the morning at issue, Officer Jones was responsible for the “face-to-face check”[5] of Mr. Feliciano and that Lt. Connelly instructed Officer Jones to do so (in order to determine if Plaintiff had any injuries prior to his transport to court). Id. ¶¶ 42-45 (citing Connolly Dep., ECF No. 103, Ex. 3 at 40, 48, 49, 50). Lt. Connelly testified that he instructed Officer Jones regarding methods for checking for injury, id. ¶ 46 (citing ECF No. 103, Ex. 3 at 46), after which Officer Jones proceeded to Plaintiff's cell. Id. ¶ 47 (citing Feliciano Aff., ECF No. 103, Ex. 2 ¶ 48; Cell Video, ECF No. 103, Ex. 4 at 09:00:16).

Plaintiff notes he complained to Officer Jones of being in pain, requested that he be transported to the hospital, and states that blood was “clearly visible” on the cell floor. Id. ¶¶ 47-48 (citing ECF No. 103 at 110; ECF No. 103, Ex. 4 at 09:00:38 to 09:02:00).

Jones thereafter purportedly assisted Plaintiff into a transport van to court, id. ¶ 50 (citing ECF No. 103, Ex. 2 ¶ 51; ECF No. 103, Ex. 4 at 09:03 to 09:04:20), but upon Plaintiff's complaints of pain and injury to court marshals, he was returned to the EHPD to be transported to the hospital. Id. ¶ 56-57 (citing ECF No. 103, Ex. 2 ¶¶ 57, 58; ECF No. 103, Ex. 3 at 62-63). Plaintiff notes that at Manchester Hospital “he was diagnosed with six fractured ribs, [a] pulmonary contusion, and [a] punctured lung.” Id. ¶ 57. According to Plaintiff, he was subsequently transferred (by ambulance) to Hartford Hospital where he remained for three weeks and underwent several surgical procedures. Id. ¶¶ 57-58.

East Hartford police officers are required to complete municipal or state-equivalent training and state-certification training. ECF No. 100-2 ¶¶ 16-17. The parties dispute the content of the training, Id. ¶ 17; ECF No. 102 ¶ 17[6], but agree that Defendants completed all required training, and re-certification requirements. ECF No. 100-2 ¶¶ 18- 20; ECF No. 102 ¶¶ 18-20. Michael Lizotte (“Sgt. Lizotte”) “is a Sergeant with the East Hartford Police Department, and training supervisor within the Training facility.” ECF No. 100-2 ¶ 29. He “has access to training files, and is familiar with the training requirements of East Hartford police officers.” Id. ¶ 30.

Defendants state that “[i]n June 2017, Joshua Litwin was the Executive Officer, Office of Chief of Police,” and he prepared charts “reflecting all discipline files and internal affairs files for defendants” up to June 20, 2017, and “internal affairs/citizen complaints from the last 10 years alleging unlawful arrest, excessive force, and failure to provide medical attention.....” Id. ¶¶ 31-34; ECF No. 102 ¶ 33-34.[7] At the time he prepared the charts, Mr. Litwin “had full access to all internal affairs, citizen complaints, and discipline files that were on file.” ECF No. 100-2 ¶ 35.

Prior to Plaintiff's arrest, “there were no prior documented complaints of excessive force against Officer Jared Richards or Officer David Choquette,” nor “complaints of denial of medical attention against [the Officer Defendants and Lts. DeMaine and Connolly].” Id. ¶¶ 21-22. From approximately February 2020 through October 2021, “four officers [were] terminated following internal investigations with negative officer outcomes.” Id. ¶ 24.

Plaintiff cites the EHPD's repeated failure to conduct adequate investigations and to impose appropriate discipline, practices that were not in line with applicable policies and did not apply a correct and consistent standard of review, and a lack of proper guidance and training with respect to detainees' medical needs. ECF No. 102 ¶¶ 75- 87. Plaintiff notes that with respect to the ten years prior to his arrest, of “71 citizen complaints or other investigations within the East Hartford Police Department alleging excessive force or failure to provide medical attention,” there was only one finding sustaining a claim, and only 9 complaints underwent formal internal affairs investigations.

Id. ¶¶ 88, 91(citing Citizen Complaints, ECF No. 103-3, Ex. 19). Plaintiff states that the EHPD “purged” a number of complaint files; some despite counsel's notice to preserve evidence with respect to Plaintiff's claims in this case. Id. ¶ 89.

Plaintiff cites evidence that during an internal affairs investigation with respect to his claims, Officer Browning interviewed three prisoners who were in cells adjacent to Plaintiff's at the EHPD and those prisoners stated that the “plaintiff was moaning in pain and had requested medical care from the on-duty Officers.” Id. ¶¶ 98-99 (citing ECF No. 103-4 ¶¶ 34, 36, 44).

According to Plaintiff's expert, Captain Ashley Heiberger (“Capt. Heiberger”), the existence of inadequate investigations at the EHPD “contributes to an atmosphere in which officers can feel empowered to engage in dubious conduct because they have seen how unlikely it is that they will be thoroughly investigated, much less held accountable.” ECF No. 100-2 ¶ 6.[8] Defendants point out that Capt. Heiberger found inadequacies based “in part” on the fact that some interviews were not recorded and that he characterizes the EHPD internal affairs process “as having ‘deficiencies and irregularities,'” but that not all investigations were improper. Id.¶¶ 7-9. Plaintiff objects and notes that Defendants' statement of fact “minimizes the widespread pattern of failure to conduct adequate investigations” at the EHPD and that the statement “omits significant facts.” ECF No. 102 ¶¶ 7-9.[9] Finally, Defendants state that although “Plaintiff's expert could testify as to any widespread pattern or practice of inadequate investigations[,] [he] could not opine if there was a pattern that cultivated any misconduct.” ECF No. 100-2 ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff disputes Defendants' statements and for his part refers to his expert's report and conclusions. ECF No. 102 ¶¶ 13-14.[10] He says the EHPD has “a quasimilitary hierarchical structure where lower ranking officers are required to obey the orders of superior ranking officers.” P. Addl. Stmt., ECF No. 102 ¶ 97.
Feliciano v. Town of E. Hartford (D. Conn. 2023)

Outcome: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 100, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to the claim in Count Four against the supervisory defendants. The Motion is DENIED with respect to the claim seeking municipal liability in Count Five. That claim, as well as the remaining claims contained in Counts One, Two, Three, and Six,[20] will proceed to trial.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: