Claims under 42 USC § 1983; False arrest; Probable cause; State-created danger; Civil conspiracy; Municipal liability; Governmental immunity; Assault & battery; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)

The court held that although defendant-Martinez’s act of sending a photo, and the other officers’ failure to mention his having sent it, reflected “extremely poor judgment,” it was not persuaded that their conduct rose “beyond honest, if tragic, negligent error.” Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendants. The case arose “out of a brutal beating and sexual assault plaintiff suffered at the hands of several individuals associated with” defendant-Treehouse Club Marijuana Dispensary after an investigation into a break-in there. Defendant-Digiacomo and Martinez “arrested plaintiff as a suspect. During the investigation, Martinez took a picture of plaintiff with his cellphone and texted the picture to a Treehouse employee.” Plaintiff brought four claims pursuant to § 1983: “false arrest, state-created danger, municipal liability for constitutional violations, and conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights.” As to the false arrest claim, the court held that the record supported the trial court’s determination Martinez and Digiacomo “had probable cause to arrest plaintiff under the totality of the circumstances.” When they “received the breaking-and-entering report, they were advised that two perpetrators had been present: a man wearing a red scarf and carrying a pipe or sledgehammer, and another man carrying a backpack. It was not unreasonable to suspect that the report of a car at a nearby vacant house, which was boarded up and without power, might be connected. Upon arrival at the house, they found a scarf, a backpack, and a sledgehammer similar to those depicted in the surveillance imagery from the Treehouse.” Although the video showed only two men, one of the two men found in the house with plaintiff “was positively identified on the video, and one of the men at the house said that they had been together all night. Under the totality of the circumstances, a prudent person would be persuaded that plaintiff was not merely present at the scene of a crime, but had actually been a participant in the breaking-and-entering at the Treehouse.” As to the state-created danger claim, the court considered whether Martinez should have known that his affirmative act of texting the photo “would place plaintiff in danger. Ultimately, although it was easily a negligent decision, we are not persuaded that it rises to the level of deliberate indifference.” The court also affirmed dismissal of this claim, as well as plaintiff’s other claims under § 1983 and the grant of governmental immunity to the officers on his assault and battery and IIED claims.