Thurman v. City of Torrington
53 U.S.L.W. 2246, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22524, 595 F.Supp. 1521 (1984)
Rule of Law:
A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if its police department has an administrative policy or custom of providing lesser protection, or no protection at all, to victims of domestic violence who are women, absent an important governmental interest justifying such gender-based discrimination.
Facts:
- Between early October 1982 and June 10, 1983, Tracey Thurman and others repeatedly notified the City of Torrington police about death threats and physical assaults made against Tracey and her son, Charles J. Thurman, Jr., by Tracey's estranged husband, Charles Thurman.
- Despite multiple reports, including an attack on Tracey in October 1982 and Charles Thurman forcibly taking Charles J. Thurman, Jr. in November 1982, Torrington police often refused to accept formal complaints or take action.
- On November 9, 1982, after police observed Charles Thurman breaking Tracey's car windshield while she was inside, he was arrested, convicted of breach of peace, and given a suspended sentence with a condition to stay away from Tracey and the residence, which the defendants were informed of.
- Subsequent reports of Charles Thurman violating this conditional discharge and making further death threats between December 1982 and May 1983, including Tracey obtaining an ex parte restraining order in May 1983, consistently led to police inaction or delay in pursuing an arrest warrant.
- On June 10, 1983, after Tracey called the police to report Charles Thurman's presence and probation violation, Charles repeatedly stabbed Tracey in the chest, neck, and throat; police arrived approximately 25 minutes later, witnessed Charles further assaulting Tracey and her child, and eventually arrested him.
- It was also alleged that Charles Thurman, while working as a counterman, boasted to defendant police officers about his intent to "get" and kill his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Tracey Thurman, Charles J. Thurman, Jr., and others filed an action in federal district court against the City of Torrington and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Defendant City of Torrington filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, or various claims therein, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing failure to allege a constitutional deprivation, failure to allege a custom or policy, lack of jurisdiction over unidentified officers, and seeking dismissal of a pendent state law claim.
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 municipality's alleged administrative custom or pattern of providing inadequate or no police protection to female victims of domestic violence, in contrast to the protection afforded to other victims, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby supporting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Blumenfeld, Senior District Judge
Yes, a municipality's alleged administrative custom or pattern of providing inadequate or no police protection to female victims of domestic violence, in contrast to the protection afforded to other victims, can violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby supporting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Equal Protection Clause is not limited to racial discrimination but applies to classifications based on gender, alienage, or legitimacy, requiring at least a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, or intermediate scrutiny for gender-based classifications (substantially related to an important governmental objective). Police action (or inaction) is subject to the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs alleged an administrative classification where the Torrington police consistently afforded lesser protection to women abused by a spouse or boyfriend compared to other victims. Such a practice, if proven, constitutes discriminatory governmental action in the administration and enforcement of the law, akin to an "archaic and overbroad" premise that the court must reject. Any notion of a husband's right to physically discipline his wife is an "increasingly outdated misconception," and police cannot decline arrests simply because the assaulter and victim are married. The City failed to articulate an important governmental interest for such disparate treatment. The court found that plaintiff Tracey Thurman had adequately alleged a "custom or policy" on the part of the City under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, citing a series of specific acts and omissions over eight months that evidenced deliberate indifference, raising an inference of custom or policy. However, the court dismissed the claims of Charles J. Thurman, Jr., finding that he had not adequately alleged a continuous failure of police protection similar to his mother, and that an isolated failure to prevent an assault does not, on its own, establish a constitutional violation. The court denied dismissal of claims against "John Doe" police officers to allow for discovery. Finally, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claim under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 7-465, citing concerns about comity, potential jury confusion due to differing legal standards, and prejudice to the City as a potential indemnitor.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it was one of the first successful applications of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause to municipal liability for discriminatory police protection in domestic violence cases. It challenged the prevailing societal and legal attitudes that viewed domestic abuse as a private family matter unworthy of police intervention. Thurman paved the way for future litigation holding municipalities accountable for policies or customs that deny equal protection to domestic violence victims, fundamentally shifting the legal landscape for these cases and influencing subsequent legislative reforms aimed at addressing domestic violence more seriously.
