Batista v. City of Perth Amboy

• Decision Date: 23 March 2020
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 15-2833 (KM)(MAH)
• Parties: SUSAN BATISTA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, CITY OF PERTH AMBOY POLICE DEPARTMENT, PERTH AMBOY POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR WILDA DIAZ, POLICE CHIEF BENJAMIN RUIZ, CITY BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR GREGORY FEHRENBACH, PERTH AMBOY POLICE OFFICERS MARK CELECKI, LIZA CAPO, LUIS GUZMAN, CITY EMPLOYEE CELESTINA CAMPOS, John Does 1-100 fictitious, and ABC Corporations fictitious 1-100, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

SUSAN BATISTA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, CITY OF PERTH AMBOY POLICE DEPARTMENT,PERTH AMBOY POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR WILDA DIAZ, POLICE CHIEF BENJAMIN RUIZ,CITY BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR GREGORY FEHRENBACH,PERTH AMBOY POLICE OFFICERS MARK CELECKI, LIZA CAPO, LUIS GUZMAN, CITY EMPLOYEE CELESTINA CAMPOS, John Does 1-100 fictitious,and ABC Corporations fictitious 1-100, Defendants.

Civ. No. 15-2833 (KM)(MAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

March 23, 2020

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

Susan Batista, pro se, filed this action against the City of Perth Amboy, City of Perth Amboy Police Department, Perth Amboy Police Department Director Wilda Diaz, Police Chief Benjamin Ruiz, City Business Administrator Gregory Fehrenbach, Perth Amboy Police Officers Mark Celecki, Liza Capo, Luis Guzman, City Employee Celestina Campos, and fictitious parties (together, the "Defendants") in the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County. Two defendants, Perth Amboy Police Officer Mark Celecki and City of Perth Amboy Police Department, removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (DE 1). This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On motion (DE 42), I dismissed all claims against defendant Perth Amboy Police Department. Now before the Court are the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE 179), individual defendant Benjamin Ruiz's motion for summary judgment (DE 178), and Ms. Batista's cross motion for summary judgment. (DE 185).¹

For the reasons set forth below I will grant these Defendants' motions for summary judgment and deny Ms. Batista's cross motion for summary judgment.

I. Facts²

Plaintiff Susan Batista is a former Perth Amboy resident who rented out rooms in her home to various tenants. (DE 179-4, Ex. E at 49:18-51:25.) One of her tenants in 2011 was an individual named Michael Cole. (Id.) Ms. Batista alleges that on or about December 11, 2011, Mr. Cole stole a certain sum of money from her which she stored in a desk drawer in a bedroom occupied by another tenant William Mason. (DE 179-4, Ex. B.) On December 11, 2011, Officer Manuel Lopez of the Perth Amboy Police Department went to Ms. Batista's Perth Amboy residence to investigate the matter, however, did not arrest Mr. Cole because he did not find sufficient probable cause to do so. (DE 179-4, Ex. D; DE 179-5, Ex. F at 41:18-42:1; DE 179-6, Ex. G at 48:9-52:13.) On December 21, 2011, Ms. Batista went to the Perth Amboy Police Headquarters to file a theft report. (DE 179-4, Ex. C.) Civilian report taker Angelica Lopez filled out a report, which stated that Ms. Batista

kept a yellow envelope with $6,500.00 dollars in currency inside her home office drawer. Victim stated that the only person allowed in her office was William R. Mason (roommate). Victim stated that on 12/04/2011 at 09:30 hrs., she left the office and the envelope was inside the drawer. On 12/11/2011 at 09:30 hrs., when she returned back to the office the currency was missing from inside the envelope. . . . Victim stated that she suspects Mr. Cole stole her currency. . .³

Id. Shortly after Ms. Lopez drafted the theft report, defendant Perth Amboy Police Department Detective Mark Celecki met with Ms. Batista, where she gave him an empty envelope that allegedly had contained the stolen money. (DE 179-4, Ex. E at 76:10-23; DE 179-4, Ex. B at No. 8.) Ms. Batista requested that Det. Celecki analyze the envelope for fingerprints. (Id.) Det. Celecki testified numerous times that he analyzed the envelope but was unable to detect any fingerprints, and thereafter returned the envelope to Ms. Batista. (DE 179-5, Ex. F at 48:17-21.)

A few months later, on April 19, 2012, Perth Amboy Police Department Detective Liza Capo was assigned to investigate the December 11, 2011 theft incident. (DE 179-4, 179-6, Exs. C and M.) On April 20, 2012, Det. Capo interviewed Ms. Batista at police headquarters. (Id., Ex. M; Ex. K at 116:20-117:19.) At that time, Ms. Batista informed Det. Capo of an interaction she had with Mr. Mr. Cole in the parking lot of the Perth Amboy Municipal Court on April 18, 2012. (Id.) Det. Capo informed Ms. Batista that she would try to obtain video surveillance of the interaction to gather additional evidence of the purported verbal exchange between Ms. Batista and Mr. Cole. (Id., Ex. M.) On April 27, 2012, Det. Capo called Ms. Batista to inform her that the cameras were not positioned in the direction of the two individuals. (Id.) Ms. Batista, however, recorded her interaction with Mr. Cole and provided the recording to Det. Capo. (DE 179-6, Ex. K at 116:23-117:19.) Due to the poor quality of the recording, the parties disagree whether the recording contains an audible admission from Mr. Cole that he committed the theft. (See id; see also DE 179-6, Ex. N.) On May 1, 2012, Det. Capo called Ms. Batista to inform her that she did not have enough probable cause to effectuate an arrest of Mr. Cole. (Id., Ex. M.) On or about May 15, 2012, Ms. Batista's case was placed on inactive status after Ms. Batista failed to return Det. Capo's phone calls. (See id., Ex. K, at 119:18-120:6; 138:4-139:3; 145:3-10.)

Five months later, on October 25, 2012, Ms. Batista went to the Perth Amboy Police Department in order to swear out a criminal complaint againstMr. Cole. (Id., Ex. M.) Det. Capo interviewed Ms. Batista again, and that day, Ms. Batista signed a criminal complaint against Mr. Cole for theft in the amount of $16,550, which under the New Jersey Criminal Code is an indictable third-degree felony offense. (Id., Ex. H.) On October 26, 2012, Mr. Cole turned himself in to the Perth Amboy Police Department, where he was arrested in connection with the 2011 incident. (Id., Ex. M.) Afterwards, the Prosecutor's Office reviewed the facts of this case to determine whether it was appropriate for presentment to a grand jury for indictment. (Id., Ex. G at 53:21-68:4, Ex. H.) On November 9, 2012, the prosecutor administratively downgraded the charges against Mr. Cole to a non-indictable disorderly persons offense, against the wishes of Ms. Batista, and notwithstanding the fact that the amount of money at issue falls within the range of a third-degree indictable offense. (DE 179-4, Ex. E at 148:2-150:7; Ex. G at 53:21-68:4.) The matter was then remanded for trial in the Perth Amboy Municipal Court. (Id.)

That criminal matter, State of New Jersey v. Cole, 1216-W-2012-1434, was tried before Judge Maria Del Vale-Koch, J.M.C. (DE 179-5, Ex. F.) Ms. Batista invoked a municipal court procedure which allowed her, as a complaining witness, to prosecute the matter herself. See NJ. Ct. R. 7:8-1 et seq. The court found that Ms. Batista failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cole was responsible for the theft, and entered a finding of not guilty. (DE 179-5, Ex. F at 77:12-20.)

In 2014, Mr. Cole brought a separate civil complaint against Ms. Batista regarding destruction of his personal property. (DE 179-6, Ex. O.) Ms. Batista counter-claimed against Mr. Cole for theft in connection with the 2011 incident on a common law conversion theory. (Id.) The case was tried before the Honorable Martin E. Kravarick, J.S.C., who found that Mr. Cole proved by a preponderance of evidence that Ms. Batista was liable for $13,322 regarding the destruction of his property, and that Mr. Cole was liable for $16,550 regarding the 2011 theft. (Id., Ex. Q at 44:9-45:20.) Thus, on June 4, 2014, the court entered an order awarding Ms. Batista $16,550 regarding her theft claimand awarded Mr. Cole $13,322 with respect to his property damage claim. After offsetting the two awards, the net result was a judgment for Ms. Batista in the amount of $3,228. (Id., Ex. R.; DE 179-4, Ex. E at 131:3-133:2.)

Since 2014, Ms. Batista has not undertaken any effort to collect her judgment against Mr. Cole. (Id., Ex. E at 136:15-137:1.) Instead, she has attempted to hold the police responsible for the same damages.

On March 18, 2015, Ms. Batista filed this action against the Defendants in the Middlesex County Superior Court, which was then removed to the District Court for the District of New Jersey. (DE 1.) Ms. Batista's Complaint allege five causes of action against the Defendants: (1) federal claims against the City of Perth Amboy and Perth Amboy Police Department for failure to investigate, destruction of evidence, falsifying police reports, and obstruction of justice; (2) a Monell claim against the City of Perth Amboy for failure to train and supervise its law enforcement officers; (3) a civil conspiracy claim; (4) violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and New Jersey Constitution for denying plaintiff her due process and equal protection rights; and (5) negligence under Title 59, New Jersey Tort Claims Act. (Id.) Ms. Batista is seeking damages in the amount of $32,000, which includes the value of the stolen money, the value of certain destroyed furniture, and carpet cleaning charges. (DE 179-4, Ex. E, 194:21-196:1.)

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Kreschollek v. S. Stevedoring Co., 223 F.3d 202, 204 (3d Cir. 2000); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Boyle v. Cnty. of Allegheny Pennsylvania, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Peters v. Delaware River Port Auth. of Pa. & N.J., 16 F.3d 1346, 1349 (3d Cir. 1994)). The moving partybears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact remains. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23. "[W]ith respect to an issue on...