Santini v. Fuentes

• Citation: 795 F.3d 410
• Decision Date: 04 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–2938.,14–2938.
• Parties: Bryan M. SANTINI, Appellant v. Colonel Joseph R. FUENTES; Trooper J.L. Fuhrmann; Trooper R.H. Sickles; State of New Jersey; John Doe 1–10 (a fictitious name); John Roe Supervising Officer (a fictitious name); ABC Corp. 1–10.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

795 F.3d 410

Bryan M. SANTINI, Appellant

v.Colonel Joseph R. FUENTES; Trooper J.L. Fuhrmann; Trooper R.H. Sickles; State of New Jersey; John Doe 1–10 (a fictitious name); John Roe Supervising Officer (a fictitious name); ABC Corp. 1–10.

No. 14–2938.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

LAR 34.1(a) June 23, 2015.

Filed: Aug. 4, 2015.

Frank A. Santini, Esq., St. Petersburg, FL, Counsel for Appellant.

Vincent J. Rizzo, Jr., Esq., Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, Counsel for Appellees.

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Bryan M. Santini appeals from two final decisions of the District Court for the District of New Jersey: (1) its September 18, 2013 decision granting summary judgment against him and (2) its May 6, 2014 decision denying his motion seeking reconsideration of the court's September decision. Santini v. Fuentes, Civ. Act. No. 11–639–JAP, 2013 WL 5554257, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2013) ; Santini v. Fuentes, Civ. Act. No. 11–639–JAP, 2014 WL 1789545, at *4–5 (D.N.J. May 6, 2014). Appellant challenges only one key ruling of the District Court. Because we believe there are outstanding issues of material fact, we are compelled to vacate in part the decisions of the District Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

1. Santini's Version of the Facts

Because we are reviewing an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants–Appellees and a motion to reconsider that order, the following factual summary is based on the facts as averred by Plaintiff–Appellant Bryan Santini (“Santini”).¹ This appeal arises from an altercation between Santini and several members of the New Jersey State Police that took place on February 3, 2009. (Deposition of Bryan Santini (“Santini Dep.”) 54:14–17). On that day, Santini was working at his family's dairy farm in Harmony Township, Warren County, New Jersey, where he milked cows in the farm's milk house. (Santini Dep. 58:19–59:1). Between 5:00 and 5:30 pm that evening, a fight broke out in the farm's milk house between two women—Tiffany Drake and Crystal Knighton. (Id. at 54:21–55:7). Santini witnessed the fight. (Id. at 56:12–13). There were approximately ten other witnesses to the fight. (Id. at 57:25–58:2). One of those witnesses called the police to report the incident. (Id. at 57:22–24).

Shortly thereafter, police officers from Greenwich Township, Lopatcong Township, and the state police arrived at the Santini family farm. (Id. at 59:17–60:1). Santini estimates that approximately twenty officers were present; three to five of those officers were from the state police. (Id. at 60:5–13). By the time the police arrived, the fight between Drake and Knighton had ended. (Id. at 60:18–23). Ms. Drake told the police that Santini had recorded the fight on his cell phone. (Deposition of Trooper J. Fuhrmann (“Fuhrmann Dep.”) 39:5–12).² Santini—standing outside of the milk house—then spoke with an officer from Greenwich Township to describe what he had witnessed. (Santini Dep. 61:17–21).

During that conversation, an officer from the state police, Trooper J.L. Fuhrmann (“Fuhrmann”), called Santini over. (Id. at 61:7–24). As Santini began to describe what he had witnessed to Fuhrmann, the Trooper yelled at Santini to take his hands out of his pockets. (Id. at 62:1–5). Santini maintains that he complied and explained that his hands were cold because he had been working in water all day milking cows. (Id. at 62:7–9). Fuhrmann responded: “I don't care. Keep them where I[can] see them.” (Id. at 62:9–10). Santini continued his story; however, after Santini's hands “went back in [his] pockets,” Fuhrmann again told Santini to keep his hands where the Trooper could see them. (Id. at 62:11–18). Santini maintains that he again immediately complied and apologized, saying: “I'm sorry, I only have my cell phone and my wallet.” (Id. at 62:18–20).

Santini continued his story. However, while he was speaking, he pulled his hands into the sleeves of his sweatshirt. (Id. at 62:25–63:4). Santini maintains that he pulled his hands into his sleeves on instinct alone because his hands were cold. (Id. at 63:12–14). At that point, Fuhrmann yelled at Santini about his hands for the fourth time. (Id. at 63:4–5; 64:20–21). In response, Santini told Fuhrmann that he was going to return to work because he had already told the other officers his story. (Id. at 64:20–24). Santini then began to walk back to the milk house. (Id. at 64:23–24). At that point, Fuhrmann said “[c]ome here” and grabbed Santini's right wrist. (Id. at 65:1–13). The two men fell to the ground, where Santini landed on his side and then rolled onto his stomach. (Id. at 65:14–21). As Santini struggled to return to his feet, one officer—who Santini believes was Fuhrmann—jumped on top of Santini and told him to put his hands behind his back because he was under arrest. (Id. at 65:23–66:3).

As that officer spoke, other officers were on top of Santini, punching him and beating him with nightsticks. (Id. at 66:3–6). At the time, Santini's hands were pinned beneath his body. (Id. at 66:7–10). While Santini was facedown, the officers surrounding him instructed Santini to stop resisting. (Id. at 67:21–24). Santini understood that their instruction meant for him to remove his hands from beneath his stomach. (Id. at 67:25–68:9). In his deposition, Santini states that he was unable to remove his arms because of the weight of the officers on top of him. (Id. ). However, in Santini's plea colloquy, he admitted that he resisted arrest. (Santini Plea Colloquy³ 8:22–9:8).

An officer then sprayed Santini with pepper spray. (Santini Dep. 67:10–12; 68:12–22).⁴ Santini states that he was sprayed for thirty seconds to one minute and that two bottles of spray were used. (Id. at 68:15–22). After the pepper spray was used, the officers were no longer on top of Santini, he was able to free his arms, and he was subsequently handcuffed. (Id. at 68:20–22). After handcuffing Santini, the officers ceased punching, kicking, hitting with batons, and pepper spraying him. (Id. at 69:10–16). Santini was then taken to Warren County Jail. (Id. at 78:22–23). There, Santini was treated with Tylenol

and eye drops. (Id. at 79:5–6). He maintains that he had “marks everywhere” after the incident. (Id. at 79:2). However, his medical records from the incident reveal no permanent or lasting injuries. (See generally App. 125–45).

2. The Troopers' Version of the Facts

The Troopers' story differs from Santini's in three ways.⁵ First, they maintain that Santini was not cooperative with Fuhrmann during the exchange between the two men. (Fuhrmann Dep. 39:14–40:6). They maintain that Santini refused to look at Fuhrmann while Fuhrmann questioned him. (Id. ). They also claim that Santini never mentioned that his hands were cold from milking cows. (Id. at 46:6–10). Second, the Defendants maintain that the physical altercation between Santini and Fuhrmann began when Santini resisted Fuhrmann's attempt to remove Santini's hands from his pockets. (App. 197). Notably, they assert that during the “grasping match” between the two men, Santini struck Fuhrmann with an open palm on the right shoulder. (Id. ).⁶ Third and finally, the Defendants allege that as Santini resisted Fuhrmann's attempts to control his hands, Santini tackled Fuhrmann and grabbed his right leg, bringing the two men to the ground. (Id.; Fuhrmann Dep. 51).

3. State Court Proceedings Against Santini

As a result of his arrest, Santini was brought before a Grand Jury in Warren County, New Jersey on May 13, 2009. (App. 124). The Grand Jury returned a True Bill against Santini, and he was indicted for aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. § 2C:12–1b(5)(a). (Id. ). In August of 2009—two days before a scheduled pretrial conference—the State brought two additional charges against Santini: obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. (Santini Plea Colloquy 3). On August 12, 2009, Santini pleaded guilty to the resisting arrest charge only; the aggravated assault and obstruction of justice charges were dismissed as part of his plea agreement. (Id. at 3–4). During his plea colloquy, Santini admitted that while he was on the ground with various officers on top of him, he resisted their efforts to pull his arms out from beneath him. (Id. at 8:22–9:8).

4. Federal Proceedings

On February 3, 2011, Santini filed a six-count Complaint in federal district court for the District of New Jersey alleging that his rights under the federal Constitution, the New Jersey state constitution, and New Jersey state law were violated by members of the Greenwich Township, Lopatcong Township, and New Jersey State police forces. Specifically, the Complaint alleged (1) violations of Santini's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, (2) a violation of N.J.S.A. § 10:6–2, (3) violations of the New Jersey state constitution, (4) false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, (5) civil conspiracy, and (6) a violation of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (N.J.S.A. § 59:11 et seq. ). On September 12, 2011, the District Court dismissed some of the named defendants⁷ —leaving Troopers Fuhrmann and Sickles (together, “the Trooper Defendants”), Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, and the State of New Jersey as the only remaining defendants.

On September 18, 2013, the District Court issued a final order granting summary judgment in favor of the Trooper Defendants and the State of New Jersey and dismissing the case. Santini v. Fuentes, Civ. Act. No. 11–639–JAP, 2013 WL 5554257, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2013). The District Court dismissed Santini's federal claims⁸ finding that (1) the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) no individual defendant was a “person” under §§ 1983, 1985 ; (3) defendants could defeat Santini's claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment; (4) §...