Civil Rights
Brett Duffy v. The Absecon Police Department, et al
Categories: Fed. Civ. Pro. R. 8
Plaintiff had been arrested by members of the Absecon Police Department for possession of a pellet gun after discharging the same in Absecon. He was later indicted and permitted to enter into the Pre Trial Intervention Program; however, Plaintiff claimed a violation of his 1st , 2nd , 4th , 5th, 8th and 14th Amendment Rights as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination based on alleged discrimination and retaliation as the Absecon Police Department and its arrest procedures and evidence gathering procedures are public accommodations within the meaning of the LAD and are a service, program or activity under both the ADA and §504
United States District Judge Jerome B. Simandle dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, finding that the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was so lacking in clarity and brevity that it violated Fed. Civ. Pro. R. 8, which requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” The Court, in agreeing with the Absecon Defendants, found that “it is not the length of the pleading which ipso facto renders it inadequate but its lack of coherence, its constant digressions…and its compound averments which severely hinder Defendants’ ability to meaningfully respond to the pleading and understand the precise parameters of Plaintiff’s cause of action.”
Because the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with the civil procedure rules, he did not address the substantive allegations.
Categories: Fed. Civ. Pro. R. 8, §1983 and Monell
This matter involved claims by Plaintiff, the mother of Richard Bard, the decedent, arising out of his shooting death by members of the Defendant City of Vineland police officers. District Judge Noel L. Hillman dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint against the defendants because plaintiff failed to plead facts with the level of specificity required by Fed. Civ. Pro. R. 8. More specifically, Plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory restatements of the legal elements of unconstitutional policy, custom and failure to train claims under Monell, without any facts to show how the City of Vineland became aware of a pattern and culture of unconstitutional behavior by Vineland officers, when and under what circumstances such events occurred, how Vineland police chiefs failed to properly train its officers, or the nature of the policy or custom that fostered the use of excessive force by the officers.
The Court held that it is well established law that a policy or custom sufficient to maintain a §1983 Monell claim ordinarily cannot be inferred from one single instances of misconduct (here, the shooting of Bard, who was African American although the robbery suspect was identified as of Puerto Rican descent by the victim, and who may have been fleeing when shot). The terms policy and custom connote an ongoing practice or course of conduct. In addition, a viable §1983 claim must show a causal link between the alleged policy and custom and the alleged injury. “To establish the necessary causation, a plaintiff must demonstrate a ‘plausible nexus’ or ‘affirmative link’ between the municipality’s custom and the specific derivation of constitutional right at issue.” The Court held that the Plaintiff has not pleaded facts to suggest that a policy or custom of targeting African Americans or permitting “whatever it takes necessary” force caused the individual officers to pursue and shoot Bard. The Court also held that the Plaintiff failed to plead facts to suggest that the police chief, as a policy maker for the City of Vineland, made a deliberate choice to promulgate, implement, or maintain the alleged policies and customs and training failures, so as to support a Monell claim.
Salve Chipola, III v. Township of Mantua, et al (Salve I)
Categories: Prolonged Investigative Detention, Unlawful Warrantless Search, Qualified Immunity, New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Monell
Plaintiff was arrested after a traffic stop and after police had observed his actions prior to the stop at a local WaWa. Once stopped, the officers initiated a canine sniff. The Honorable Samuel J. Ragonese found the officers had reasonable suspicion, based on what they had observed both before (at the WaWa) and during the stop that the Plaintiff was in possession of illegal substances. Thus, the stop was not only premised on the traffic violations and even if it had been, the Court found that the Complaint failed to allege any facts to suggest that the canine sniff extended or prolonged the time of the mission related to the traffic stop. The Court also found that neither the entry of the canine into the vehicle or the officer into the vehicle constituted an unconstitutional search and further that there was no civil rights violation at all.
NOTE: Plaintiff was given an opportunity to correct inadequacies in his Complaint and in fact filed a new Complaint and the same was dismissed with prejudice as to all counts (Salve II).
Hartman and Whitten v. The Township of Lower, et al
Categories: Civil Service Commission, New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Civil Rights Act of New Jersey
Plaintiffs sued the Township and various executive members alleging they were discriminated against based on age and reverse military discrimination for provisional promotions. The Honorable James H. Pickering dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint in the Superior Court and transferred the matter to the Civil Service Commission at the request of the Defendants. The Court found that the Civil Service Commission has primary jurisdiction over provisional and permanent appointments. Judge Pickering held that the provisional appointment issue was not in the conventional experience of Superior Court judges, that the same issue was within the agency’s discretion and expertise, that inconsistent rulings would pose a danger to the statutory scheme and that prior application had not been made to the Commission by the Plaintiffs. The Court did not address the issue of qualified immunity raised by the Defendants because he remanded the matter to the Commission.
Carney v. Mayor Edward Mahanney, Jr. and City of Cape May
Categories: New Jersey Civil Rights Act
The Honorable J. Christopher Gibson granted the Motion for Summary Judgement filed on behalf of the Defendants. Plaintiff had filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act for having shut down the bar owned by the Plaintiff without due process and for loss of reputation when the City announced there were 78 calls for service to the bar, which included a sexual assault at the bar, when the City knew the same to be untrue. Plaintiff also claims a violation of equal protection claiming that the City treats his bar differently than other similarly situated bars in the City.
In granting the motion for summary judgment, the Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the use of his liquor license has been impaired through discriminatory actions depriving him of his substantive due process or equal rights protections. The Court found that the Plaintiff also failed to show an “egregious” governmental action that “shocked the conscience”. In addition, the Plaintiff failed to show that his establishment was treated any differently than other establishments that were similarly situated, using the Plaintiff’s own words against him.
Mujaddid v. Westampton Township, Andrew Brewer, et al
Categories: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1)
Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and his denial of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. After receiving a traffic citation, the Appellant filed suit. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to contain a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”, holding that the same was anything but “simple, concise and direct” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) and also failed to plead any facts showing that he was entitled to relief.
Janowski v. City of North Wildwood, et al
Categories: False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Supervisory Liability, Municipal Liability and New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Qualified Immunity
The Honorable Renee Maria Bumb granted a Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of the Defendants, City of North Wildwood and its Chief. The Court denied a Motion to dismiss filed on behalf of an individual officer. Plaintiff was arrested after Sergeant McGee of the North Wildwood Police Department believed that the Plaintiff presented a false identification. In denying the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Sergeant McGee the Court found that on the record before it, she could not assess whether or not it was reasonable for Sergeant McGee to believe that probable cause existed to arrest the Plaintiff. The Court also found that it could not be said that on the face of the Complaint, qualified immunity attached.
Grant v. Township of Middle, et al
Categories: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Civil Rights Violations, Judicial Immunity
Plaintiff filed a complaint in Federal Court after: 1) her Superior Court matters were dismissed and 2) she was found guilty in Municipal Court (on unrelated matters). United States District Judge Renee Marie Bumb dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice finding that the Court lacked subject matter over the plaintiff’s three claims, even when construed liberally in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court also found that to the extent that Plaintiff was alleging civil rights violations, those claims were barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity and the Court noted that the Plaintiff had had numerous opportunities to cure the deficiencies in her complaint and was unable and that any further attempts too would be futile.
Castro v. Mullica Township et al
Categories: New Jersey Civil Rights Act, §1983, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, Failure to Supervise
Plaintiff was arrested and charged with murder. All charges were ultimately dismissed. Plaintiff filed suit against various actors in connection with his arrest claiming that the Defendants willfully, recklessly and callously disregarded his rights under federal and state law by blatantly ignoring evidence pointing to another suspect, fabricating evidence and misrepresenting the actual facts adduced, and failing to obtain and preserve critical evidence. United States District Court Judge Noel L. Hillman dismissed as to Mullica Township; however, claims against various individual officers engaged in the investigation and the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s office survived.
The Court held that this case was a fact intensive assessment of whether the police officers reasonably, but mistakenly, concluded that probable cause existed to arrest. As such, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, and if believed by a jury, the evidence showed that the foundation for probably cause was based upon intentional or deliberatively indifferent conduct by the officers involved such that a reasonable person would not believe that Plaintiff murdered the victim. The Court also held that the Plaintiff provided sufficient disputed issues of material fact regarding the investigation overall, including evidence to support his claims as to the investigators’ supervisors’ own alleged failures that led to the faulty basis for probable cause.
In granting summary judgment in favor of Mullica Township the Court found that because the first responding officers were not named defendants, there is no mechanism for the Township to be found liable under N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(b).
Kleiner v. Purdy, Township of Galloway, et al
Categories: New Jersey Civil Rights Act, First Amendment
Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of all defendants by the Trial Court. Plaintiff was elected as a Galloway Township councilman in 2009 and took his seat in 2010. Defendants were fellow council members. Plaintiff claims from the time he took office until the time he resigned in May of 2012 he was subjected to personal attacks by Defendants Purdy and Hartman as retaliation for political disputes. Plaintiff claims he resigned as a result of those retaliatory actions of the defendants. The Trial Court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court found that Plaintiff was an elected official whose position subjected him to public scrutiny whether it be fair or unfair. Although Plaintiff claimed he resigned from his position because of adverse false publicity, another politician may not have resigned under the same circumstances. First Amendment retaliation protection does not extend to politicians who have been the target of negative comments and the Court denied to do so here.
Categories: First Amendment, New Jersey Civil Rights Act
The Plaintiff, a resident of the Borough of Longport, filed suit claiming First Amendment retaliation for his having criticized the Longport Police Department publicly on the Harry Hurley radio talk show. The Honorable Noah Bronkesh granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, Borough of Longport, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact when the facts were viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. More specifically, the Court found that the record established that the investigation into a burglary at the property of the Plaintiff was proper, thorough and adequate. Even if the Plaintiff had shown inadequacy, the Plaintiff provided no evidence that an inadequate investigation was tied to his appearance and criticism of the Borough on the radio show.
Categories: Malicious Prosecution, Respondeat Superior, 4th Amendment Seizure, Qualified Immunity
Federal District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle dismissed all claims against all Federal and Municipal Defendants in response to both sets of Defendants filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff was arrested after she failed to leave the United States Post Office in Northfield New Jersey. Plaintiff then sued for malicious prosecution, slander and filing false police reports. Among other claims, the malicious prosecution claims were dismissed, as the Plaintiff was convicted of the offenses with which she was charged; the claims against the Federal Governmental entities were dismissed due to sovereign immunity; the claims against the Chief were dismissed due to a lack of any evidence that would allow a fact finder to conclude that the Chief had actual knowledge or personal involvement in any violation of Plaintiff’s rights; the Monell claim against the City of Northfield was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to show that that a City official who had the power to make policy is responsible for either the affirmative proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a well-settled custom of discrimination.
O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport, et al
Categories: Invasion of Privacy, Conspiracy, Due Process
Plaintiff, a homeowner in the Borough of Longport, alleged the Borough and various elected officials wrongfully authorized an investigator to invade his privacy and to silence him in an effort to cast him in a false light in the public eye. He also made claims of invasion of his privacy, assault and harassment against other defendants who were not elected officials or employees of the Borough. He also claimed conspiracy to retaliate against him for exercising his right to free speech and challenging governmental action and claimed a denial of equal protection. In a 95 page opinion, the Honorable J. Christopher Gibson analyzed and addressed each issue and determined defendants were entitled to summary judgement dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. The Appellate Division reviewed the record, the briefs and the applicable legal principles and rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal. They affirmed the order granting summary judgment for substantially the same reasons expressed by Judge Gibson.
Moriarity v. DiBuonaventure, et al
Categories: Illegal Policy or Custom, Failure to Train, Monell, §1983
Plaintiff, the former Mayor of Washington Township, filed suit against the Defendants for, among other things, malicious prosecution, failure to train and various §1983 violations stemming from a traffic stop in the Township. Chief United States District Judge Jerome B. Simandle held that the facts pled by the Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege the existence of an illegal policy or custom by the Washington Township Police Department (WTPD) that it knew or should have known would result in violations of the Constitutional rights of New Jersey citizens, so as to make it liable under §1983. Complaint was dismissed as to WTPD with prejudice and without as to other Defendants to allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.
Paredes v. Egg Harbor Township Board of Education, et al
Categories: Due Process, Monell
Plaintiff, a minor student, was suspended after it was alleged that he stole another student’s cell phone. Plaintiff was found with the cell phone and ultimately admitted to taking the same without permission. He was suspended and charged with theft. The theft charge was dismissed. The issue to be addressed was whether the undisputed material facts could be found by a reasonable factfinder to demonstrate that any of the Defendants violated any constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs. United States District Judge Jerome B. Simandle found that they could not.
Categories: Qualified Immunity, Monell
This case involves an encounter between the Plaintiff and members of the Millville Police Department. Plaintiff was a driver in a vehicle when he began filming members of the Department. Plaintiff was ultimately arrested due to the encounter. The arresting officer, Officer Chard, claimed in his written report that he was dragged by Plaintiff’s vehicle. United States District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez denied various motions for summary judgment finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not Chard’s characterization of the events in his police report and testimony to the grand jury were objectively reasonable. Because the Court could not find that Chard’s actions were objectively reasonable, qualified immunity could not attach. The Court also denied summary judgment on the supervisory claims based on the arguments of the Plaintiff that prior assault convictions of other officers present a question of fact for the jury to decide if the Chief was “deliberately indifferent to his officers’ custom of using shock and awe tactics.
Categories: §1983, malicious prosecution, false arrest and wrongful search and seizure and Monell
Plaintiff was on vacation in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. After a night out Plaintiff entered the home of a stranger, passed out and left upon waking up. She left her identification behind. Plaintiff was charged with trespass as officers believed they had evidence of all elements necessary to do so. Plaintiff filed a complaint for malicious prosecution, false arrest and wrongful search and seizure and a Monell claim against the Borough of Stone Harbor. United States District Judge Robert B. Kugler granted defendants motion for summary judgment holding that no reasonable jury could find that the facts and circumstances presented to Defendants were insufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that Plaintiff committed a trespass. The same reasoning was applied to the false arrest claim and with regard to the wrongful search and seizure claim.
Trotta, et al v. Borough of Bogota, et al
Categories: Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process
United States District Court Judge Kevin McNulty in granting the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of the Borough held that the Borough’s decision to build a small parking lot in a public park did not violate the legal rights of the Plaintiffs (adjacent homeowners). Plaintiffs were not treated differently than their neighbors or any other similarly situated individuals. Without a disparity in treatment the claims of the Plaintiffs’ failed. As to the claim for a violation of due process, the Court held that substantive due process does not extend to a diminution in value of property and even if it did, the action here, in building the park, did not shock the conscience.
Austino v. City of Vineland, et. al.
Category: Civil Rights Act, Conscientious Employee Protection Act
Terms: First Amendment; Retaliation; Adverse Employment Action; Internal Affairs Investigation; Statute of Limitations
Summary: The Plaintiff, a Captain in the Vineland Police Department, filed a complaint on 2/4/20 in the US District Court against the City of Vineland as well as other city officials claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights under section 1983 and state violations of CEPA. The Plaintiff’s complaint contained numerous allegations, some dating back to 2012, relating to the exercise of plaintiff’s right to speak and to the subsequent retaliation by defendants. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim arguing the Plaintiff’s claims were time barred by the statute of limitations. The Court determined that all of the specific allegations dating prior to 2/4/2018 were time barred by the statute of limitation. The remaining allegations were that he was retaliated against by not being promoted to chief of police and by an outside attorney being hired to conduct an internal affairs investigation against him. The Court dismissed these allegations as well because (1) the federal court is not the forum to adjudicate the merits of labor grievances, and (2) an internal investigation, in and or itself, does not qualify as adverse employment action for First Amendment purposes. The Court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.
Category: Civil Rights Act
Terms: False Imprisonment; False Arrest; Malicious Prosecution; Probable Cause
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a civil rights action in the US District Court against Det. Gray from the Somers Point Police Department alleging violations of his federal and state constitutional rights in relation to his arrest and detention. The Plaintiff asserted causes of action for false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Upon motion for summary judgment, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Det. Gray lacked probable cause to generate the warrant and arrest the Defendant, thus defeating each of the Plaintiff’s individual causes of action.
Austino v. City of Vineland, et. al.
Category: Civil Rights Act
Terms: False Imprisonment; False Arrest; Malicious Prosecution; Probable Cause
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a civil rights action in the US District Court against Det. Gray from the Somers Point Police Department alleging violations of his federal and state constitutional rights in relation to his arrest and detention. The Plaintiff asserted causes of action for false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Upon motion for summary judgment, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Det. Gray lacked probable cause to generate the warrant and arrest the Defendant, thus defeating each of the Plaintiff’s individual causes of action.
Forrest v. City of Camden et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Excessive Force; Failure to Train; Failure to Supervise
Summary: In this lengthy opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reverses the District Court’s partial grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Camden, finding that the District Court erred in analyzing the Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, specifically his claims regarding the City of Camden’s failure to train its high-ranking police officers and its failure to supervise its police officers. Thorough analysis of claims under Section 1983 alleging failure to train and/or failure to supervise.
Russell v. Town of Hammonton, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Malicious Prosecution; Favorable Termination
Summary: The Plaintiff had been stopped by a Hammonton Police Officer and issued several motor vehicle violations, including driving while intoxicated, and a criminal complaint for operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for DUI. During the criminal proceedings, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence based on an illegal stop, and the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Criminal Division granted the motion, finding the State could not sustain its burden of showing probable cause for the stop. The County Prosecutor then filed a motion to dismiss the Indictment based on the Court’s ruling on the suppression motion. The Plaintiff then filed a Complaint in the US District Court alleging a malicious prosecution claim against the Town and the Hammonton Police Officer. The Defendants filed for Summary Judgment, which was granted. The Court found that the factual circumstances under which the criminal and motor vehicle charges were dismissed failed to satisfy the favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim. Specifically, the manner of termination did not demonstrate or otherwise indicate the Plaintiff’s innocence.
Best v. City of Newark ,et al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Excessive Force; Objective Reasonableness; Qualified Immunity
Summary: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a grant of summary judgment by the trial court in this matter. The Plaintiff had filed a Complaint against the City of Newark and others claiming excessive force. The Plaintiff had been shot in the stomach by a Newark Police Officer after allegedly resisting arrest. Just prior to the shooting, the Police Officer testified that he observed then felt a gun in the Plaintiff’s waistband. The Plaintiff, in his criminal proceedings, pled guilty to possession of a handgun as well as resisting arrest. The Appellate Division, in affirming the lower court’s decision on the summary judgment motion, found that the Police Officer did not utilize excessive force and was entitled to qualified immunity.
Harley v. City of Woodbury, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Due Process; Qualified Immunity; Exculpatory Information
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the US District Court asserting a Section 1983 claim as well as state law claims of negligence and gross negligence. The Plaintiff had been arrested by a Woodbury Police Officer after investigation into an armed robbery that had occurred. Upon being arrested, Plaintiff provided an alibi that he was at an IOP meeting at the time the robbery occurred. Several other persons corroborated the Plaintiff’s alibi, including his counselor for the meeting. However, the Police Officer failed to timely present this exculpatory information to the County Prosecutor, and the Plaintiff remained detained for twenty-one days. Plaintiff conceded there was probable cause to arrest, however, alleges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights by the Police Officer failing to act upon the exculpatory evidence and his prolonged detention as a result thereof. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Court. The Court found the Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the factual circumstances viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff failed to overcome the qualified immunity.
Hyman v. Borough of Longport, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Retaliation; First Amendment; Protected Activity; Frivolous Litigation; Counsel Fees
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, alleging that the Longport Police Department harassed him and failed to properly investigate a burglary at his home in retaliation for him appearing on a public radio show on several occasions and making derogatory remarks about the Borough and its Police Department. During the course of Discovery, the Plaintiff’s main witness provided sworn statements stating that the Police Department did in fact properly investigate the burglary. The Defendant then issued to the Plaintiff a Frivolous Lawsuit Notice, and Plaintiff refused to dismiss his claim accordingly. The Defendants filed for summary judgment, which was granted. The Defendants then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, which was denied. Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling, and the Defendant’s appealed the denial of award for attorney’s fees. The Appellate Division affirmed both holdings of the trial court.
Allen D. Morris v. Pleasantville, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Qualified Immunity; Unlawful Arrest; Probable Cause; Excessive Force; False Arrest; Unconstitutional Entry
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint claiming, among other things, a violation of his civil rights, alleging that law enforcement officers unlawfully entered his home without a search warrant, effectuated a false arrest of his person, and used excessive force. The Plaintiff further sought to impose liability upon the City of Pleasantville. The US District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court further held that the Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence showing that the City of Pleasantville adopted a custom or police that caused injury to the Plaintiff, or that the City disregarded the training, screening, or supervision of its officer.
Eric Morillo v. Monmouth County Sheriff’s Officers (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Qualified Immunity; Law Enforcement Officers; Unlawfully Arrested
Summary: The plaintiff filed a complaint claiming violation of Section 1983 and the CRA, alleging law enforcement officers wrongfully charged him with unlawful possession of a weapon which led to his incarceration until bail was posted. The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a dismissal of the plaintiff’s Section 1983 and CRA claims based on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The Court found when a plaintiff asserts that he or she was unlawfully arrested, an officer can defend such a claim by establishing either that he or she acted with probable cause, or, even if probable cause did not exists, that a reasonable police officer could have believed in its existence.
Monica Raab v. City of Ocean City and Jesse Scott Ruch
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Excessive Force, Failure to Supervise, Inadequate Training
Summary: The United States District Court granted the City of Ocean City’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that (1) the municipality had knowledge of the offending incident or knowledge of a prior pattern of similar incidents, or (2) the supervisor’s inaction communicated a message of approval to the offending subordinate.
Thomas Suchocki v. Paulsboro Police Department, et. als. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights Act (CRA)
Terms: Unlawful Arrest; Probable Cause; Failure to Supervise/Train
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint claiming a violation of Section 1983 and the CRA, alleging the arresting law enforcement officer violated his Fourth Amendment Rights by effectuating his arrest without probable cause. The Plaintiff further sought to impose municipal liability against Paulsboro for failing to adequately train or supervise the arresting law enforcement officer. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that, although the facts leading to the Plaintiff’s arrest may have been insufficient to sustain a conviction under the offenses charged, the Officer had sufficient probable cause to effectuate the arrest. The Court further noted that Paulsboro cannot be liable for a constitutional transgression by its employee that never occurred.
William A. Reed, Jr., et. al. v. Karen Scheffler et. als. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights Act
Terms: Free Speech, Defamation. Public Official, Due Process, Retaliation
Summary: The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant, Mayor of the Borough of Palmyra, as well as the Borough of Palmyra, under claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the New Jersey Constitution. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges violations of his right to free speech as well as defamation. The matter arising from a Borough ordinance requiring a seller to obtain a certificate of occupancy prior to the sale of a home. The Plaintiff, in an interview with a local newspaper, voiced his concern and displeasure with the Borough ordinance. The Defendant, in a separate interview with the same newspaper, subsequently made remarks about the poor condition of the home and the purpose and need for the ordinance. Upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the U.S. District Court found that the Plaintiff’s claims for violations of free speech and defamation were not sufficiently pled, and the Court accordingly dismissed those Counts of the Complaint.
Norcross v. Town of Hammonton (Brief)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Failure to Train; Excessive Force; Failure to Supervise
Summary: U.S. District Court Motion for Summary Judgment arguing Monell claims and Qualified Immunity.
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Malicious Prosecution; False Arrest; False Imprisonment
Summary: U.S. District Court Motion for Summary Judgment arguing Monell claims and Probable Cause for Arrest.
Hoffman v. The Township of Fairfield (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Tortious Interference; Procedural Due Process; Negligence; Substantive Due Process
Summary: U.S. District Court opinion (Judge Irenas) on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion regarding whether the Township’s delay in issuing a junkyard license violated the Plaintiff’s rights and tortiously interfered with a contract to sell their business. The Summary Judgment Motion was granted.
Dare v. The Township of Hamilton (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Section 1983 Claims (Official Capacity & Personal Capacity); Section 1985 Claims; Section 1986 Claims; N.J. Civil Rights Act
Summary: U.S. District Court opinion (Chief Judge Simandle) regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as to the Police Chief based upon Plaintiff’s failure to allege any facts to suggest personal involvement or that the Chief created any policy regarding the subject violations charged by the Plaintiff. The Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 1983, 1985 and 1986 Claims and the N.J. Civil Rights Act Claims; Defendant’s Motion was granted.
Suchocki v. The Borough of Paulsboro(Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Section 1983 Claims; False Arrest; Depravation of Rights (Counsel); Probable Cause
Summary: U.S. District Court opinion (Judge Irenas)on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion determined that the there was probable cause for arrest, and that there is no “free-standing Fifth Amendment claim for denial of the right to counsel during questioning”. Therefore, Summary Judgment was granted.
Miller v. Waterford Township, et al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Section 1983 Claims; False Arrest; Deprivation of Rights; Negligent Hiring or Retention; Conspiracy
Summary: U.S. District Court opinion (Judge Irenas) on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion regarding several interactions ending in arrests of Plaintiffs by Defendants. The Court determined that there are disputes as to the material facts of the incidents that led to litigation, and therefore, the Defendants’ Motions were granted in part and denied in part. Defendants, Waterford Township, Passarella, and Staiger’s Motions were granted in full; Defendants Lyons and McNally’s Motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Ashley v. Pleasantville Police Officer Angelo Maldonado, et al. (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights
Terms: Section 1983 Claims; Excessive Force; Failure to Intervene; Deprivation of Rights; DUI
Summary: U.S. District Court opinion (Judge Irenas) on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion regarding a DUI charge where the suspect resisted arrest and was injured. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based upon no constitutional violations occurring.
Joseph Carney, et. al. v. Mayor Edward Mahanney, Jr. and the City of Cape May (Opinion)
Category: New Jersey Civil Rights Act; Due Process
Terms: substantive due process; civil rights; liquor license; disparate treatment; equal protection rights; “egregious” governmental conduct
Summary: Plaintiff, the owner of a bar in the City of Cape May, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, against the City and its former Mayor alleging that the Mayor tarnished the bar’s reputation and caused a loss of revenue when the Mayor forced the bar to shut down early on an evening in which a fight occurred at the bar. The Plaintiff also made disparate and unequal treatment claims against the City of Cape May, alleging disparate and unequal treatment in the enforcement of a municipal ordinance regulating noise emanating for bar establishments. The Hon. J. Christopher Gibson, J.S.C., granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the high burden needed to sustain a cause of action under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, noting that the Plaintiffs failed to show “egregious” governmental conduct. The Court further found that the Plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence of disparate or unequal treatment.
Hayley Steinberg v. Philip D’Alonzo (Opinion)
Category: Civil Rights Act
Terms: Excessive Force; Qualified Immunity
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, against the Defendant, a Medford Township Police Officer, alleging that the Defendant used excessive force in effectuating her arrest, causing injuries in the process. The Hon. Susan L. Claypoole, J.S.C., granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence showing that the actions of the Defendant rose to the level of impermissible, excessive force.
Michael A. Caronte v. Lt. Daniel Chiumento and Lt. David D’Amico
Category: Civil Rights Act
Terms: Excessive Force; False Arrest, Assault and Battery; Due Process
Summary: The Plaintiff failed a Complaint in the United State District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, alleging claims of excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment, common law assault and battery, and a violation of due process, all claims stemming from his arrest. Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the Defendants on all counts. The Hon. Renee Marie Bumb, U.S.D.J., found there existed probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff, and therefore, summary judgment was warranted on the false arrest and false imprisonment claims. Judge Bumb further found that there was insufficient evidence of excessive force or an assault and battery. Lastly, Judge Bumb found no evidentiary support for Plaintiffs’ due process claims.
Category:
Unlawful Detention
Terms:
Traffic Stop; Civil Rights Act
Summary:
N.J. Appellate Division decision regarding unlawful detention. The
Summary Judgment Motion was granted finding that the detention was
reasonable.
Kelty v. City of Linwood (Memorandum of Decision)
Category:
Malicious Prosecution
Terms:
Probable Cause; Qualified Immunity; Civil Rights; Issue of Material
Fact
Summary:
Judge Nelson C. Johnson’s Decision on a Summary Judgment Motion
regarding a domestic incident where Plaintiff admitted to stabbing an
individual in his home and was arrested. The Court found that there
was probable cause for the arrest and Summary Judgment was granted.