U.S. District Judge Hector Gonzalez granted a motion for summary judgment Friday that tossed the last remaining claim — malicious prosecution — in a civil suit brought by U.S. Navy veteran Larry Thompson against four police officers who arrested him in his house one night in January 2014.
In the suit, Thompson accused four cops of breaking into his apartment without probable cause following a report of child abuse that later turned out to be false.
After all of Thompson's civil claims were dismissed by a jury in January 2019, only one officer, Pagiel Clark, remained to defend against the malicious prosecution claim for his role in filing a criminal complaint accusing Thompson of obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest.
In his order, Judge Gonzalez said that based on the factual record considered at the 2019 civil trial, no reasonable juror could conclude that Clark lacked probable cause to submit a criminal complaint charging Thompson with those offenses. The judge also said Clark was protected by qualified immunity, a legal doctrine shielding law enforcement officers from civil suits seeking damages for civil rights violations.
"Clark had probable cause to charge plaintiff with [obstructing governmental administration] even according to plaintiff's account of the events leading up to his arrest," Judge Gonzalez said. "Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution based on the [obstructing governmental administration] charge is therefore appropriate."
The judge said he made his decision by focusing on the record of the trial, where jurors were asked: "Did you find that a defendant unlawfully entered plaintiff's apartment?"
"The jury resolved that question at trial by answering 'NO,'" Judge Gonzalez wrote in his order.
Patricia Miller, the chief of the special federal litigation division at the New York City Law Department, which represents Clark, told Law360 in an email she was "pleased" with the court's ruling.
"A jury, and now the district court, have determined the claims lack merit, confirming that police officers acted appropriately under the circumstances to protect the health and safety of a baby," she said.
David A. Zelman of the Law Office of David Zelman and Cary London of Shulman & Hill, who represent Thompson, told Law360 they are disappointed by the ruling and are planning an appeal.
"We think the judge is wrong," he said.
Thompson was arrested on the night of Jan. 15, 2014, after he refused to let in NYPD officers who showed up at his door without a warrant. The officers came after his sister-in-law called 911 to falsely report that Thompson had been abusing his week-old daughter.
Following his verbal and physical resistance, Thompson was charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest, both misdemeanors. Prosecutors later dropped the charges.
Months later, Thompson sued for false arrest, excessive force, violation of due process, denial of a fair trial and malicious prosecution, as well as failure to intervene and denial of medical treatment. The case went to trial, where Thompson lost all claims, except malicious prosecution, which never went before the jury.
In pretrial proceedings, U.S. District Judge Jack. B. Weinstein had ruled that Thompson's malicious prosecution claim could not proceed because he could not meet a Second Circuit standard for that type of claim, as he had to show his state criminal prosecution ended in a ruling on the merits in his favor. Thompson's charges were dropped "in the interests of justice," a widely used disposition that says nothing about a defendant's innocence.
But following trial, Judge Weinstein wrote a 36-page memorandum in March 2019 where he made clear that he disagreed with the Second Circuit's "favorable termination" rule, saying it "should be changed."
He also criticized another Second Circuit rule that says that when police enter a house without a warrant during an emergency in which a person's life might be threatened, the burden of proof for showing the situation doesn't require a warrantless entry falls on the householder.
"Placing the burden of persuasion on the civilian plaintiff is a repeated injustice that should stop now," Judge Weinstein wrote.
The memorandum provided fodder for Thompson's lawyers to argue he should be allowed to present his malicious prosecution claim to a federal jury.
The favorable termination rule made its way to the Supreme Court, where it met the ax of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who on behalf of a 6-3 majority struck it down in April 2022 on the grounds that it unfairly gave prosecutors and courts too much power in dooming criminal defendants' prospects to prevail in malicious prosecutions suits against officers.
The high court remanded the case, and weeks later the Second Circuit issued a mandate for the district court to examine Thompson's malicious prosecution claim again. Following Judge Gonzalez's decision, his lawyers still have the option to appeal.
"The circuit will take another look at this and see if Judge Gonzalez has complied with the mandate in the case," Zelman said. "It seems like an endless process, but you know, it's just due to the judicial mistakes that have been made, including this one."
Thompson is represented by David A. Zelman of the Law Office of David Zelman, and Cary London of Shulman & Hill.
Clark is represented by Kavin Suresh Thadani of the New York City Law Department.
The case is Thompson v. The City of New York et al., case number 1:14-cv-07349, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
