17‐123 Fernandez‐Bravo v. Town of Manchester, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of January two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X Pedro Cristian Fernandez‐Bravo, Plaintiff‐Appellant, ‐v.‐ 17‐123 Town of Manchester, Marc L. Montminy, Chief, in his official and individual capacities, Maria Garay, Officer, in her official and individual 1 capacities, John Maston, Sergeant, in his official and individual capacities, Claudia Rojas, Defendants‐Appellees. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X FOR APPELLANT: Igor G. Kuperman, Law Offices of Fromzel & Kuperman LLC, Stamford, CT. FOR APPELLEES: Alan R. Dembiczak, Howd & Ludorf, PLLC, Hartford, CT, for Town of Manchester, Marc L. Montminy, Maria Garay, and John Maston. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff‐appellant Pedro Cristian Fernandez‐Bravo appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissing his Complaint pursuant to a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Fernandez‐Bravo argues on appeal that the district court erred in granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing (1) the Fourth Amendment false arrest and malicious prosecution claims premised on the allegations that defendant Garay intentionally provided false information and omitted other information in her arrest warrant affidavit; (2) the substantive due process claim premised on the same allegations; (3) the First Amendment retaliation claim; and (4) the abuse of process claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 2 1. Plaintiff first challenges the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, arguing that omissions and misrepresentations in the arrest warrant undermined probable cause for his arrest, and Officer Garay should not be covered by qualified immunity. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non‐moving party. Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124, 127 (2d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals