Appletree v. City Of Hartfor

555 F.Supp. 224 (D. Conn. 1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On December 28, 1979, Casati (D1), a Hartford police officer, got a warrant to arrest Appletree (P) on charges of interfering with a police officer on December 21, 1979. P was arrested pursuant to it on January 4, 1980. The charge of interfering with a police officer was dismissed by a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court on or about February 15, 1980. P filed a written complaint against D1 with the Internal Affairs. Glowacki (D2) met with plaintiff and informed him that no complaint against a Hartford police officer would be entertained unless filed subject to criminal penalties for making false statements. D2 obtained plaintiff's signature on a document stating: I fully understand that if I make a statement that is untrue and which is intended to mislead a law enforcement officer in the performance of his official function, I will be in violation of Section 53a-157, Connecticut General Statutes. On or about October 1, 1980, D2 obtained a warrant for the arrest of P on a charge of making a false statement in violation of Section 53a-157 of the Connecticut General Statutes. On June 18, 1981, this charge was dismissed by a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court. P sued and seeks money damages and injunctive relief. Count One, based on Section 1983, alleges that the defendants deprived him of rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut during a course of events involving the procedure by which the Hartford Police Department deals with civilian complaints. Count Two alleges that D1 committed unconstitutional and tortious acts by procuring plaintiff's arrest on a false charge of interfering with a police officer. On both counts, the jurisdiction of the court is invoked under Section 1331 and 1343(3), pursuant to the claims under the United States Constitution, and under the pendent jurisdiction of this court with respect to the state causes of action sounding in tort. Ds moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. D1 filed a counterclaim in which he alleges that P libeled and slandered him. P has moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.