Many Biker Gang Members Armed, Legally

[strambo]

Oh, you think that's funny carebear?! You ever been assaulted by a day-old jellyfilled? It's no laughing matter....

 

[WeedWhacker]

Yeah, those day old jelly-filled are downright vicious. Still, count your lucky stars it wasn't one of those custard ones - the last one got Jimmy by suprise, even though I had a 12-gauge ready.

It wasn't pretty.

 

[XavierBreath]

"One of my sergeants discovered very early on that they were heavily armed, which means probably everybody was armed. There were no problems. They were all polite to him. He did call for some additional backup just to have there because he had multiple people stopped."
Joffer said some of the Outlaws were given traffic tickets, but all of the bikers had permits to carry concealed weapons and they were allowed to continue their trip to Sturgis.

This article does it's best to create fear of concealed firearms, and the laws that allow concealed carry. Yet even in this article the truth could not be denied. There were no problems. They were all polite to him.

Criminals do not feel the need for concealed carry licenses, and rarely apply for them. Bikers must go through the same legal process as dentists and librarians to obtain that license. They get fingerprinted like everyone else. They do not get a free pass on the background check. Am I missing something here?

There is the possibility of fake CCW licenses, but that in itself is a crime, and another issue. We cannot allow any law abiding person of the age of majority in a shall issue state to be denied a permit. It does not matter what they drive, wear, where they worship, if they worship, the color of their skin, the influence they carry, or do not have. Shall issue means shall issue. Sean Penn and Dianne Fienstien should not be special cases, and neither should a person who rides a Harley with a patch on his back. If you pass the qualifications, you get the license. Doing otherwise would set CCW back thirty years.

 

[Turkey Creek]

I've been trying to figure out what he meant by heavily armed- so far I've come up with either they're carrying extra large cannons mounted on the handlebars or they are just fat

 

[Biker]

Many cops are taught at academy - don't laugh, this is true - that some bikers have rigged their handlebars to fire a 12 gauge SG shell to shoot backwards at approaching cops when stopped on the side of the road. They even teach that some etch crosshairs on their rearview mirrors to aid in aiming.
When I told my Bros about this, a few etched crosshairs on their mirrors just for chits and grins. Sick SOBs...

Biker

 

[280PLUS]

I had a conversation with an "Outlaw" once. He was complaining that the cops were always harrassing him and his buds. I told him it was probably the NAME of his club. I told him that if they renamed it something like the "Fun Times Motorcycle club" they'd probably have less problems. He thought that was pretty funny.

 

[Biker]

I have to chuckle at some of the guys I've ridden with over the years - bitchin' about being hassled by cops. It goes with the territory, although I do have to say that the vast majority of our local cops are downhome folks. 'Course, we don't give 'em any reason not to be. Ya generally get what ya give.

Biker

 

[280PLUS]

Yea, I believe in his locale the police have nothing better to do. So if there's nothing else going on and you're a cop there's always the local "Outlaws" to mess with. It's like job security.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I told him it was probably the NAME of his club.

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the chapter (of the Outlaws) near where I grew up was responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime, viz., narcotics, extortion, prostitution, murder.

I knew a minister who was involved in a prison ministry at Eddyville, KY. A friend of a convict asked him to take something into the prison to the convict.
It was against the rules. He was green at the job and didn't know you couldn't take (whatever it was) into the prison.

They then tried to coerce him into bringing drugs into the prison. He refused. They responded by riding around his house where he, his wife and children, lived. He notified the authorities and subsequently lost his job.

These are the boy scouts you defend.

My opinion is that membership in an outlaw gang, any gang, should be a felony and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Art Eatman]

Responses to PAR's post WILL be High Road...

Art

 

[Biker]

PandR...

Cheeeeerist, you ever been to an Elks Lodge party?

Seriously, you envision a different America than I do. You can't make it through a day without breaking a law which means you live outside of the law which makes you an outlaw. 'They' set it up that way. That's the way 'they' want it.
You'd better go turn yourself in.

Biker

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Oh, and by the way, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I had friends from high school who joined the Louisville chapter of the Outlaws. I very closely monitored their activities.

It is a criminal enterprise in every sense of the word.

 

[Lupinus]

Yeah PAR and some members of Italian pride groups are mobsters. Some members of the NAACP probably belong to the bloods the crypts or a host of other gangs, etc.

Are there some bad apples? Sure. But if you ever actually hung around with bikers they are great guys. Try it sometime, find your local biker watering hole and go have a few drinks....just don't talk like you have here. Hell last one I went to had a weekly bbq to give to charity and tossed scraps off the back deck to the aligators (yes it was on the water had a boat deck and had aligators....living in Florida can be an adjustment )

There are bad gangs and there are gangs by name only, learn the difference.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

There are bad gangs and there are gangs by name only, learn the difference.

I have. Have you? I have studied the history of the Hell's Angels, The Outlaws, Iron Horsemen and the Italian Mafia. I have observed the Crips (it's not "crypts"), Bloods, Nortenos. These are criminal enterprises to their very core.

Do some research. Find out about them from the perspective of Law Enforcement. It's not a pretty picture.

They are not cowboys and there is nothing romantic about what they do.

You're suggesting we've stereotyped these gangsters because of the antics of a few? Yet you're trying to suggest the gangs are good because of the benevolence of one or two?

There is learning that needs to be done. And it is not "I."

While I was still living in California, a Nortenos gangster committed suicide by cop. He gunned down a couple of officers (family men) and was killed in return.

The nortenos declared war on all police officers. The area was placed on high alert (this was Ceres, CA, home of Sonny Barger, BTW) and the police were forced to start rounding these people up purely on the basis of gang affiliation.

I thought it was a good start.

 

[Biker]

PAR...

Research all you want. I've "been there, done that". There are good outlaw clubs and not so good. Until you've been there, you have no way of knowing. It's the difference between reading a Playboy and *being* a Playboy, watching a boxing match and *being* a boxer. You don't know what you're talking about.

Biker

 

[benEzra]

And every biker who attends a huge nationally known biker gathering is somehow automatically an outlaw?

What'd they do, show their official Bad Guy Identification Cards to the police?

The police apparently jumped to the conclusion that they were bad guys based on the fact that they were biker dudes who were traveling to attend a biker gathering. Guess what, my boss does that, and he probably has a Secret-level government security clearance. A bunch of my coworkers attend biker gatherings too, and they are all regular, law-abiding people who happen to wear leather and ride Harleys on the weekends.

 

[Lupinus]

yeah you can study all you want that doesn't mean you truly know. A lot of people have studied the battle of the Buldge, that doesn't mean they know what it is like for it to just be you and the guy sharing your foxhole in the middle of a godforsaken forest in the middle of Winter with a bunch of Germans aiming their guns at you.

As Biker said, there is a difference in studying and knowing.

How many hells angels have you known personally? I've known to few and been to BBQ's with them when I was younger, great group of guys. Rough around the edges and take no crap from no one? Absoloutly, but I've known regular blue collar guys that would knock your teeth out faster.

How about members of the Italian Mafia? Know any of them personally? Ever been to the family picnic and talked to them? Done that to, not ruthless killers at all. I will grant you though that the mafia is indeed a criminal organization, but the people in it aren't half as bad as hollywood would like you to think. I will take a Mafia neighborhood anyday over a LOT of neighborhoods out there, infact I'd probably take one over the one I am in now. But since you hatched the mafia bit figured I'd respond in kind.

I'd take a biker or a member of the mafia any day over a lot of the people I have known.

And study CCW in general from the prospective of law enforcment, it isn't pretty

 

[c_yeager]

The day and age when motorcycles were viable working class transport are long gone.

Ive got an $800 Honda in my driveway with over 50,000 miles on it that says otherwise.

-

Its such a rare day that I actually agree with Biker on an issue of any kind that I am actually going to bookmark this page so that I can refer to it again in the future.

 

[Biker]

I'm honored, I think...

Biker

 

[Car Knocker]

Among those attending and riding at Sturgis were Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Sec. of the Interior Kempthorpe. Huntman has a CFL.

I'd sure like to see due process before some bureaucratic puke denies CCW due to "association".

 

[big poppa]

holy cow! ive been bikin 30 years ,ive rode with ALL types of biker clubs (including a GAY biker club that i ran into at a poker run! pardon the pun)a biker club is a society into itself.ya good good ones an bad ones and some that are real baaaad.as someone stated give extra room to 1% er,s a lot of them have NO sense of humor.biking today aint what it used to be 25 years ago.back in the day when my scruffie exterior would pull up along side mr. and mrs. joe citizien the doors would go lock, windows would roll up and id get that "not with my daughter" look.god how i miss those day,s!( well some parts of it) now it,s a family event!big corperate money got involved,trashy biker look got copied and marketed.it,s about making a buck now,all these biker ralleys look alike now,as for the cops, for the most part, have gotten a lot NICER.heck went to cherokee n.c. to a bike ralley in april,meet two longhair types with beards who later turned out to be retired new jersey cops!

 

[carebear]

PandR,

I don't think anyone's saying that some, or even most, full patch member and associates of the various, real, "outlaw biker" gangs aren't criminals. Heck, the conviction records alone will show a significant (that is, not statistically insignificant) percentage who are in fact involved in multi-state criminal enterprises of all types. A lot of these boys are flat out crimimals, no ifs, ands or buts.

But....

All of them aren't. The member(s) who attempted to suborne smuggling by your friend were actually committing a crime. The members who went along on the harrassment ride may or may not have had knowledge of the attempt, but simple knowledge of the attempt isn't illegal, only participation. They weren't necessarily guilty of any crime.

The members who did the harassment rides were obeying the rules of any MC club, you support your brothers.

Did they break a law? Maybe some kind of traffic infraction. Worst case, attempting to intimidate a witness, but the preacher wasn't a witness, was he?

So they, in theory, were just being jerks in suport of their friends. Doesn't make it right or noble or excusable, but it doesn't make them "guilty" (and convicted) of an offense that would prevent them from getting a permit.

I am not coming down in support of intimidating jerks who sometimes support real criminals but I (and apparently the law) can't find anything worth yanking a permit on general principles.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I've known to few and been to BBQ's with them when I was younger, great group of guys.

Stop it. I'm getting misty.

Your argument is false and can be easily refuted. We'll use syllogistic logic.

A syllogism breaks every argument into three components: a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. If any are false, the argument is false.

Major premise: An organization with good people makes the organization good.
Minor premise: Hell's Angels has some good people.
Conclusion: Hell's Angels is a good organization.

However, your argument is specious and can be demonstrated as such.

Here's an example of why your logic, therefore your argument, therefore your entire proposition, is false.

Major premise: An organization with good people makes the organization good.
Minor premise: The Nazi party had some good people.
Conclusion: The Nazi party was good.

We see here that your major premise is false which leads to a false conclusion.

Sure, there have been some gangsters who probably did something "good" sometime in their lives, but that doesn't make them good.

Herman Goering loved animals and was kind to dogs. So was Adolph Hitler. Does that make them good people?

Sorry, but all you gangster apologists have yet to produce a credible argument.

BTW, it's a stale tactic to try to put all motorcyclists into the equation. We're only talking about criminal enterprises, viz., Outlaws, Hell's Angels, Iron Horsemen, et al.

 

[280PLUS]

Here is what the local OMC has been up to around here. Interestingly enough the police came away from the raid empty handed. I'm not saying they're ALL good little boys and girls but not all of them are bad ones either.

1 Plaintiffs concede that it intended to withdraw its First Amendment claim when it
amended its complaint, and that Paragraph 35(c) of the Amended Complaint was maintained in
error. See Pl’s Mem. Opp. Mot. to Dismiss at 1.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
OUTLAWS MOTORCYCLE CLUB, :
ET AL :
Plaintiffs, : CIVIL ACTION NO.
: 3:04-cv-537 (JCH)
v. ::
RICHARD WILLIAMS, ET AL : SEPTEMBER 1, 2004
Defendants. :
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 20]
Outlaws Motorcycle Club (“OMC”), Gary Piscottano, Allison Piscottano, Domenic F.
Papsadore, Christopher K. Curvin, Kelly Hemmeler, Clifford Hemmeler, Philip O. LaBonte,
Jr., Barbara Warren, and Marty Warren (“plaintiffs”) bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1988, and the First1, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States against Richard Williams, Richard Perron, Carmine Verno, Patrick
Cauley, Frank Griffin, Peter Terenzi, Thomas Garbidian, Robert Burgess, Lt. Gould, Daniel
Lewis, Robert Keeney, Darren Edwards, Karen Gabianelli, Julie Mooney, Chris Alex, Sgt.
Mucherino, Tim Wright, James Campbell, Ed Rickevicius Eric Stevens, J.L. Kelley, Joseph
Voket, Troopers Dubuc, Wyler, Palen, Orlowski, Walkley, Lunz, Zonghetti, McCarthy,
Toney, Mercer, Basak, Alogna, Kodzis, Covello, Rochette, Fitzsimons, Rief, Bednarz, and
Brundage in their individual capacities, and the Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety, individually and in his official capacity (“defendants”). The defendants move to
dismiss this action for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
2 On a motion to dismiss the court is bound to accept as true all factual allegations in the
complaint. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
-2-
Procedure. For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND2
Plaintiffs allege that on December 20, 2003, Outlaws Motorcycle Club held a
Christmas Party attended by, inter alia, the individual plaintiffs at its Waterbury,
Connecticut clubhouse. During the party, the defendants, wearing black clothes and
masks, carrying automatic or semi-automatic weaponry, and accompanied by dogs, broke
into the clubhouse without previously knocking or announcing their presence. The
defendants screamed directives, pointed their weapons at the plaintiffs and other
partygoers (collectively the “attendees”), and used their dogs in a threatening manner. The
attendees were instructed to lie face down on the ground and were forcefully restrained
and handcuffed. Certain attendees were thrown down, kicked, and/or stepped on.
The attendees were forced to remain either lying face down or in a kneeling
position for approximately 40 minutes while the defendants conducted their search. The
defendants searched the premises, the persons and personal effects of the attendees,
searched automobiles owned by the attendees, and ripped open and searched wrapped
Christmas presents brought to the party by the attendees. In addition, the defendants
damaged the property of plaintiffs, seized property including an address book in the
possession of OMC’s President Marty Warren, and did not allow the attendees to leave
without having their picture taken.
-3-
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants have engaged in an ongoing pattern of
harassment towards certain plaintiffs. In particular, plaintiffs claim that defendants have
interfered with plaintiffs’ attempts to rent facilities for social gatherings by telling the parties
renting out the facilities that the OMC is a criminal or subversive group. This interference
has led renters to violate their agreements with the Club, and has caused it inconvenience
and financial loss. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that on a number of occasions, the most
recent being March 2, 2004, one or more of the defendants have stopped one or more of
the individual plaintiffs without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or probable cause,
questioned them, and forced them to identify themselves or be photographed.
Plaintiffs contend that the defendants are depriving them of equal protection under
the law by treating them differently from other similarly situated citizens for reasons
unrelated to a legitimate government objective, and based upon a malicious intent to injure
the plaintiffs.
II. STANDARD
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b), courts are bound to accept as true all factual allegations in the
complaint and draw all inferences from those allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See, e.g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The simplified notice
pleading standard requires that a complaint contain only “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2); see also
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). “This simplified...standard relies
on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and
-4-
issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.
This is so even if the plaintiff is ultimately unlikely to prevail. “Indeed it may appear
on the face of the pleading that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the
test.” Branham v. Meachum, 77 F.3d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford
Bd. of Educ., 69 F.3d 6691 673 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted)). “A district
court may grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle
[her] to relief.’” Tarshis v. Riese Org., 211 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Otherwise, “claims lacking merit may be dealt with
through summary judgment under Rule 56.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514.
III. DISCUSSION
1. First Amendment Claim
Defendants first move for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim found in paragraph 35(c)
of the Amended Complaint, which defendants argue is an attempt to “bootstrap” a First
Amendment claim into the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim. See Def’s Mem. Supp. Mot. to
Dismiss at 3-4. However, inclusion of paragraph 35(c) in the Amended Complaint
appears to have been a clerical oversight by the plaintiffs. See Mem. Opp. Mot. to
Dismiss at 1. The plaintiffs have dropped their First Amendment claim. See Withdrawal
(Dkt. No. 18). Therefore, this issue is moot. To the extent the clerical error has caused the
plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim to remain technically at issue, the defendants’ motion to
dismiss this claim is granted.
2. Fourteenth Amendment Claim
3 The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant Commissioner of Public Safety violated
their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights both directly and through failure to remedy the
wrongs of other defendants, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional
practices occur, by exercising gross negligence in supervising other defendants, by
demonstrating gross indifference to the plaintiffs’ rights, and through the Commissioner’s
position as supervisor of the other defendants. (Am. Compl. ¶37).
-5-
Plaintiffs may bring an equal protection challenge where they allege they are a
member of a “class of one”, or in this case a “class of several”, that has intentionally been
“treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the
difference in treatment.” Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (noting
in a footnote that the plaintiffs constituted a “class of five”). The OMC alleges that it and its
members have been treated differently under the law by the defendants than similarly
situated citizens on several occasions. (Am. Compl. ¶ 35) Specifically, the plaintiffs allege
that defendants’ actions during a raid of an OMC Christmas party (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22-30),
their alleged interference in OMC’s attempts to secure the use of various properties for
social gatherings (Am. Compl. ¶ 31), and defendants’ allegedly illegal stops of various
OMC members (Am. Compl. ¶ 31) violate both the plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).3 The plaintiffs allege that these actions were
taken to injure and harass them based on their membership in the OMC. See Am. Compl.
¶¶ 30-31.
Citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814 (1996), defendants claim that an
equal protection claim cannot stand when police have probable cause to institute the
search upon which the claim is based, “where, to prove the claim, evidence that the
officers’ intent was of a discriminatory nature is required.” See Mem. Supp. Mot. to
-6-
Dismiss at 12. However, Whren does not say that a Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection claim cannot stand in such a situation. The plaintiffs in Whren challenged a
police search solely under the Fourth Amendment, claiming that while the police had
probable cause to pull over their vehicle for a traffic violation, the police really pulled them
over to investigate a narcotics crime and that the Fourth Amendment prohibited them for
performing a search under the “pretext” of a valid traffic stop. See 517 U.S. at 810. The
Supreme Court held that “ubjective intent alone...does not make otherwise lawful
conduct illegal or unconstitutional.” Id. at 813 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
However, the Supreme Court pointed out that its decision did not constitute a
foreclosure of Fourteenth Amendment claims. Specifically it said:
We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective
enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the
constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of the
laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment.
Id. Far from blocking the plaintiffs, this case appears to direct the plaintiffs to challenge
defendants’ actions just as they have: using an equal protection basis.
The defendants also point to two Second Circuit decisions they refer to as Brown I
and Brown II. However, the Second Circuit did not find that the Fourth Amendment
somehow trumped the Fourteenth Amendment in situations involving police searches
based on probable cause. In Brown I, the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the
plaintiffs’ equal protection claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the police had a
discriminatory motive. See Brown v. City of Oneonta, New York, 221 F.3d 329, 338 (2d
Cir. 2000). Rather than an announcement of a constitutional rule, it was merely a situation
-7-
where the plaintiffs failed to allege an element of their claim. Here, the plaintiffs have
specifically alleged that the defendants treated them differently from others similarly
situated “for reasons unrelated to a legitimate government objective” and with “a malicious
intent to injure the Plaintiffs”. See Am. Compl. ¶ 35 (a) & (b).
Brown II, at base, is merely a summary denial of a petition for rehearing en banc.
See Brown v. City of Oneonta, New York, 235 F.3d 769, 770 (2d Cir. 2000). The
passages of Brown II cited by the defendants as “the Brown II court” (Mem. Supp. Mot. to
Dismiss at 14) are, in fact, from a concurring opinion to the Summary Order. See Brown II,
235 F.3d at 770-75 (Walker, C.J., concurring). Even so, the concurrence qualifies its
statements regarding the Fourth Amendment by noting that it is referring to situations
“where a citizen who is questioned is not deprived of his liberty even for a brief period of
time and remains free at all times to walk away from the officer. . . .” Brown II at 776. The
plaintiffs allege that the attendees were handcuffed, made to lie on the floor for 40 minutes,
and not allowed to leave prior to having their picture taken. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 28.
Thus, even the Brown II concurrence appears to be inapposite to the case at bar.
The plaintiffs have alleged a set of facts that meets the elements of a “class of one”
equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Their complaint “give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff[s’] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. The cases cited by the defendants claiming that a
Fourteenth Amendment claim per se cannot stand in this situation are inapposite.
Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection claim is denied.
4 Because the First Amendment claim is withdrawn, the qualified immunity assertion as
to that claim is moot.
-8-
3. Defendants’ Claim of Qualified Immunity
The defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is based on the rule that government
officials are immune from suit for damages based on their performance of official duties
“insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Mem. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss
at 15 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The defendants argue that,
because Fourth Amendment analysis trumps the plaintiffs’ claims under the First4 and
Fourteenth Amendments, no violation of those amendments could have occurred, and
therefore defendants have qualified immunity as to those claims. See Mem. Supp. Mot. to
Dismiss at 20-21. However, the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim has not been
dismissed. In fact, if the defendants, as alleged by the plaintiffs, “treated [the plaintiffs]
[differently] from others similarly situated [with] . . . no rational basis for the difference in
treatment,” then the defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment. See Olech, 528
U.S. at 564.
The inquiry does not stop here, however. In Saucier v. Katz, the Supreme Court
held that lower courts must also examine whether “the right the [government] official is
alleged to have violated [is] ‘clearly established’” . . . . 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). In Cobb
v. Pozzi, the Second Circuit held that the “law pertaining to ‘class of one’ equal protection
claims was clearly established in 1999.” 363 F.3d 89, 111 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore,
defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim based on
-9-
qualified immunity is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 1st day of September, 2004.
/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

 

[280PLUS]

By the same token PAR you are concluding that because some of them are bad the whole organization is bad.