Opinion
22 CV 1874 (VB)
11-08-2023
HUMBERTO RIVERA, JR., Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF NEW FAIRFIELD; NEW FAIRFIELD RESIDENT TROOPER'S OFFICE; PO/TROOPER DAVID KOONITSKY; PO/TROOPER JAMIE OLSOWY; PO/TROOPER JAMES KING; and PO/TROOPER DAVID THARAS, Defendants.
ORDER
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
For the reasons set forth on the record at a conference held today, attended by plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and all defense counsel, the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint as to defendant New Fairfield Resident Trooper's Office is GRANTED. (Doc. #71).
Under Connecticut law, “municipal departments, including police departments” are not legal entities that may be sued “separate and apart from the municipality they serve.” Rose v. City of Waterbury, 2013 WL 1187049, at *9 (D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2013). “Rather, it is the municipality itself which possesses the capacity to sue and be sued.” Id.; Weitz v. Greenwich Police Dept., 2005 WL 375302, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 10,2005) (same); see also Nicholson v. Lenczewski, 356 F.Supp.2d 157, 164 (D. Conn. 2005) (“A municipal police department... is not a ‘person' within the meaning of section 1983.”). Here, the municipality is the Town of New Fairfield, which is already a party to this case. The New Fairfield Resident Trooper's Office is not an independent entity amenable to suit.
Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against defendant New Fairfield Resident Trooper's Office are dismissed.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate defendant New Fairfield Resident Trooper's Office from the docket.
The Clerk is further instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #95).
SO ORDERED.