Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv-01189-AHN

Document 94

Filed 04/30/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MICHAEL J. FAGO Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HARTFORD, ET AL. Defendants. : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02CV1189 (AHN)

APRIL 30, 2004

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS MCCLURE, JOBES AND RUSSELL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Defendants Nancy McClure, Patrick Jobes and Robert Russell respectfully move for summary judgment on all claims contained in Plaintiff's Complaint in which they are named. Summary Judgment should enter for the following reasons: 1. McClure, Jobes and Russell were not personally involved in the decision to

return Plaintiff to the rank of sergeant and, consequently, cannot be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983; 2. The actions of McClure, Jobes and Russell did not proximately cause Plaintiff to

be returned to the rank of sergeant and, consequently, they cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 nor can they be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3. Plaintiff cannot produce sufficient evidence of racial animus to support an Equal

Protection claim against McClure Jobes or Russell, nor can he establish a hostile work environment;

Case 3:02-cv-01189-AHN

Document 94

Filed 04/30/2004

Page 2 of 3

4.

Plaintiff has not engaged in speech regarding a matter of public concern and,

therefore, cannot support a First Amendment retaliation claim against McClure, Jobes or Russell; 5. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that McClure, Jobes or Russell retaliated against

him for his testimony in the sergeants' case; 6. Immunity; 7. Plaintiff cannot establish a viable claim of intentional infliction of emotional McClure, Jobes and Russell are entitled to the protections of Qualified

distress against McClure, Jobes or Russell; 8. Any alleged defamatory statements made by McClure, Jobes or Russell are

absolutely immune from defamation liability because Pawlina's investigation was a quasijudicial proceeding; and 9. The alleged defamatory statements attributed to McClure, Jobes and Russell are

either true or expressions of opinion and are not actionable as defamatory. In further support of this motion, the Defendants rely upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support, their Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Facts Not in Dispute and accompanying affidavits and materials.

2

Case 3:02-cv-01189-AHN

Document 94

Filed 04/30/2004

Page 3 of 3

DEFENDANTS, NANCY MCCLURE, PATRICK JOBES AND ROBERT RUSSELL By Joseph W. McQuade, ct12121 [email protected] Jennifer Lian Dixon, ct15914 [email protected] Kainen, Escalera & McHale, P.C. 21 Oak Street, Suite 601 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone (860) 493-0870 Facsimile (860) 493-0871 Their Attorneys

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants McClure, Jobes and Russell was sent via first class U.S. mail on this the 30th day of April, 2004 to: James S. Brewer, Esq. Erin I. O'Neil, Esq. Brewer & O'Neil, LLC 818 Farmington Avenue West Hartford, CT 06119 Charles L. Howard, Esq. Gregg P. Goumas, Esq. Derek Mogck, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP One American Row Hartford, CT 06103-2819

Joseph W. McQuade
11910

3