John McDonald v. Robert Derry, Adam Rosenberg, Jack Goncalves, Brian Foley, James Rovella, Stavros Mellekas, and Jason St. John

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted separate motions to dismiss filed by Adam Rosenberg and the State Defendants in John McDonald’s civil rights and state-law tort action. The court held that McDonald’s claims against Rosenberg were time-barred and rejected his reliance on Connecticut’s continuing course of conduct doctrine. The court also dismissed various claims against the State Defendants, including official-capacity § 1983 claims, fraud claims, and asserted privacy and Connecticut constitutional claims, and analyzed the remaining due process and retaliation theories.

Holdings

1. McDonald's malicious prosecution, § 1983, constructive fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Rosenberg were untimely because he knew or had reason to know of the alleged harm and Rosenberg's allegedly false complaint no later than October 5, 2021, but did not serve Rosenberg until October 25, 2024.
2. McDonald failed to state a procedural due process or stigma-plus claim against the State Defendants because he did not adequately allege deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest without due process.
3. McDonald failed to state a substantive due process claim because the alleged employment-related injuries were not violations of fundamental rights and the alleged workplace conduct did not shock the conscience; claims based on the investigation were governed by more specific constitutional provisions.
4. McDonald failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because his internal complaints about Rosenberg were made pursuant to his official responsibilities and therefore were not protected citizen speech under Garcetti.
5. After dismissing all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McDonald's claims against Rosenberg were barred by the applicable three-year statutes of limitations.
2. Whether the continuing course of conduct doctrine tolled the limitations period for McDonald's claims against Rosenberg.
3. Whether McDonald adequately alleged procedural due process, including a stigma-plus claim, against the State Defendants.
4. Whether McDonald adequately alleged a substantive due process violation based on the investigation, workplace actions, and related conduct.
5. Whether McDonald adequately alleged First Amendment retaliation based on his internal complaints about Rosenberg's conduct.
6. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed