Brunson v. Murray

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting motion for summary judgment by defendants-prosecutor, certain police officials and City of Bridgeport in instant section 1983 action alleging that said defendants subjected plaintiff to false arrest on felony aggravated battery charge arising out of incident in which plaintiff and individual associated with defendant-Mayor were involved in physical altercation. Defendant-prosecutor was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, and remaining defendants were entitled to summary judgment where: (1) plaintiff was arrested pursuant to arrest warrant, which would normally preclude any false arrest claim; and (2) plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendants supplied false information when obtaining arrest warrant. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-Mayor, Chief of Police and City’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 claim arising out of defendants’ alleged interference in plaintiff’s liquor store business and vandalism of his store, even though Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff had presented no evidence that defendants had treated other similarly-situated liquor establishments more favorably, where Ct. of Appeals held that: (1) plaintiff, in instant class of one equal protection action, need not present evidence of disparate treatment, where plaintiff held only Class B liquor license in town; (2) plaintiff had offered other evidence of discriminatory behavior from defendants pertaining to false claims by defendants that plaintiff was in violation of local liquor laws and to actions leading to unnecessary closing of plaintiff’s business; and (3) jury could find that there was no conceivable justification for defendants’ actions. Also, defendant-Mayor was not entitled to absolute immunity on claim that Mayor had failed to timely act on plaintiff’s license renewal, although Mayor would be entitled to said immunity on any decision to revoke or suspend liquor license.