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


File Size: 21.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 430 Words, 2,770 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/15268/101.pdf

Download Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut ( 21.3 kB)


Preview Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 101

Filed 10/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HOWARD JOHN GOMBERT, JR.,: Plaintiff : : v. : : LARRY LYNCH and WILLIAM : KAMINSKI, : Defendants : PRISONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01CV1913(DJS)

OCTOBER 24, 2006

DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 56, and this Court's Order of October 3, 2006, Defendants Larry Lynch and William Kaminski, both Investigators with the New Milford Police Department, respectfully renew their Motion for Summary Judgment on the narrow remaining issue that survived the Court's Ruling on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, dated February 15, 2005. In particular, based upon the undisputed facts, Investigators Lynch and Kaminski are entitled to summary judgment because: (1) Investigator Lynch's removal of certain property from the plaintiff's motor vehicle on March 1, 2000, was legally permissible pursuant to the "safekeeping" or "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement; (2) even if Investigator Lynch was not authorized to remove the

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 101

Filed 10/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

property, he and Investigator Kaminski are nonetheless protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because their conduct was objectively reasonable or, at the very least, reasonable officers could disagree about the propriety of removing the property for safekeeping; and (3) the plaintiff's allegation regarding the disposition of his property does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and instead implicates only issues of state law. As more fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Statement of Undisputed Facts, affidavits and supporting documents, Investigators Lynch and Kaminski are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's remaining claim. WHEREFORE, the defendants Larry Lynch and William Kaminski respectfully request summary judgment on the plaintiff's remaining claim. DEFENDANTS, LARRY LYNCH and WILLIAM KAMINSKI BY /S/ James N. Tallberg Federal Bar No.: ct17849 Karsten & Dorman, LLC 29 South Main Street West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel. 860-521-4800 Fax. 860-521-7500 [email protected]

Case 3:01-cv-01913-DJS

Document 101

Filed 10/24/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that, on October 24, 2006, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will

be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Court's system. /SS/ James N. Tallberg Parties may access this filing through the