Dunton v. County of Suffolk
729 F.2d 903 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a government attorney provides joint representation to a municipality and its employee in a § 1983 action, a prejudicial conflict of interest arises if the attorney advances a defense for the municipality (e.g., that the employee acted in a personal capacity) that undermines a potential defense for the employee (e.g., good faith immunity), thereby depriving the employee of a fair trial.
Facts:
- On May 20, 1981, Emerson Dunton, Jr. accompanied his co-worker, Angela Pfeiffer, to her car after a retirement party.
- Angela Pfeiffer's husband, Robert Pfeiffer, a Suffolk County police officer, arrived at the scene in his patrol car.
- Robert Pfeiffer pulled Dunton out of Angela Pfeiffer's car and struck him repeatedly, causing non-permanent injuries.
- On June 18, 1981, Angela Pfeiffer filed a criminal complaint against Dunton, alleging third-degree sexual abuse.
- The criminal case against Dunton was later dismissed because the prosecution exceeded the statutory sixty-day limit for trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Emerson Dunton, Jr. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Robert Pfeiffer, Angela Pfeiffer, Suffolk County, and the Suffolk County Police Department.
- The Suffolk County Attorney's office undertook joint representation of both Suffolk County and Robert Pfeiffer.
- The district court dismissed all claims except the § 1983 and battery claims against Robert Pfeiffer and the malicious prosecution claim against Angela Pfeiffer.
- A jury found Robert Pfeiffer not liable under § 1983 but liable for battery, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- The jury found Angela Pfeiffer liable for malicious prosecution, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- Robert Pfeiffer's post-trial motions for a new trial based on his attorney's conflict of interest were denied by the district court.
- Robert Pfeiffer and Angela Pfeiffer appealed the judgments against them to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government attorney's joint representation of a police officer and the employing municipality create a prejudicial conflict of interest requiring a new trial when the attorney argues the officer acted solely in a personal capacity, thereby undermining the officer's good faith immunity defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Meskill, Circuit Judge
Yes. When a government attorney jointly represents a police officer and the municipality and argues the officer acted in a personal capacity to shield the municipality from liability, it creates a serious conflict of interest that undermines the officer's good faith immunity defense and deprives the officer of a fair trial, necessitating a new trial. After the Supreme Court's decision in Monell, municipalities can be held liable for an employee's actions, creating a direct conflict: the municipality's best defense is that the employee acted outside the scope of employment, while the employee's best defense is good faith action within the scope of employment. The Suffolk County Attorney’s strategy of portraying Robert Pfeiffer as an 'irate husband' rather than a police officer served the county's interest by avoiding municipal liability but directly sabotaged Pfeiffer's potential good faith immunity defense under § 1983. Because the jury never had a chance to consider this defense, Pfeiffer did not receive a fair trial. Additionally, the federal claims against Angela Pfeiffer were patently meritless, meaning the district court never had subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim of malicious prosecution against her, which must therefore be dismissed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the significant ethical conflict that arises for government attorneys in the post-Monell era of municipal liability under § 1983. It establishes that a municipality's attempt to avoid liability by arguing its employee acted personally creates a direct and prejudicial conflict with the employee's interest in asserting a good faith immunity defense. The ruling places a duty on trial courts to identify such conflicts and ensure the defendant is fully informed, and it serves as a strong precedent suggesting that separate counsel for the municipality and the individual officer is often required to ensure a fair trial. The decision underscores that a layperson defendant cannot be expected to waive such a complex conflict unknowingly.
