Williams v. TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON

D. Connecticut

Williams v. TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON

45 F. Supp. 2d 981, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5369, 1999 WL 225092

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut

DecidedApril 13, 1999

Docket3:98CV1638 WWE

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. Supp. 2d 981 (Williams v. TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON, 45 F. Supp. 2d 981, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5369, 1999 WL 225092 (D. Conn. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

EGINTON, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff, Susan Williams, alleges that the Town of Southington (“Town”) violated her constitutional rights when it terminated her employment as a police officer. Williams seeks to recover damages against the Town pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Williams claims that the Town violated her constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech by allegedly firing her in retaliation for her lawsuit against the Southington Police Chief.

Southington has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

DISCUSSION

The function of a motion to dismiss is “merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” Ryder Energy Distribution v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1984). When deciding a motion to dismiss, the municipal liability is established only where the misconduct by the policy making official provides a basis for an inference that an official policy exists. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 468 (3d Cir.1992); See also, Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987)(sheriff established county policy by ordering strip searches).

*982 In this instance, Williams, allegations that the Board defended its Chief of Police in Williams, prior lawsuit and that the Board subsequently decided to terminate her do not raise an inference that an official policy existed to retaliate against employees for filing such lawsuits. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of civil rights. Mazurek v. Wolcott Board of Educ., 815 F.Supp. 71, 77 (D.Conn.1993).

CONCLUSION

The defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 18] is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

EGINTON, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff, Susan Williams, alleges that the Town of Southington (“Town”) violated her constitutional rights when it terminated her employment as a police officer. Williams seeks to recover damages against the Town pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Williams claims that the Town violated her constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech by allegedly firing her in retaliation for her lawsuit against the Southington Police Chief.

Southington has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

DISCUSSION

The function of a motion to dismiss is “merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” Ryder Energy Distribution v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1984). When deciding a motion to dismiss, the municipal liability is established only where the misconduct by the policy making official provides a basis for an inference that an official policy exists. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 468 (3d Cir.1992); See also, Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987)(sheriff established county policy by ordering strip searches).

*982 In this instance, Williams, allegations that the Board defended its Chief of Police in Williams, prior lawsuit and that the Board subsequently decided to terminate her do not raise an inference that an official policy existed to retaliate against employees for filing such lawsuits. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of civil rights. Mazurek v. Wolcott Board of Educ., 815 F.Supp. 71, 77 (D.Conn.1993).

CONCLUSION

The defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 18] is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. Supp. 2d 981, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5369, 1999 WL 225092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-town-of-southington-ctd-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack