Byrd v. Finley
| Decision Date | 31 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 19-6879 (FLW) (LHG) |
| Parties | STEPHAN BYRD, Plaintiff, v. LT. MATTHEW FINLEY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Plaintiff Stephan Byrd (“Byrd” or “Plaintiff”) a convicted federal prisoner, filed with the Court a pro se complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff's IFP application, ECF No. 3, and Plaintiff has resubmitted a certified account statement. ECF No. 4. At this time, the Court grants Plaintiff's IFP application and screens Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed.Appx. 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v. Beard, 492 Fed.Appx. 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)); Courteau v. United States, 287 Fed.Appx. 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
The gravamen of Plaintiff's 78-page Complaint is that members of a multijurisdictional task force,[1]comprised of local, state, and federal officials, falsely arrested and detained Byrd in July 2014 on attempted murder charges in order to develop evidence to prosecute him for a series of federal bank robberies.
Plaintiff has sued Lt. Matthew Finley, Detective Michael Fransko, Detective Craig Scarpa, Detective/United States Marshal Service Nicholas Sterchele, Detective Gregory Pacitto, Supervisor of Records Officer Michelle Pedulla, and DMCA Damaris Cortes, Detective Michael Sauvigne, Detective Ken Gonzalez, Detective Michael Dinato, Prosecutor Michael Ostrowski, Special Agent Joseph Furey, Special Agent Michael Scimeca, Special Agent Jason Dijoseph, Special Agent Mark Gillen, Special Agent Bradley Cohen, Special Agent Monica Cueto, Special Agent Carrie Brzezinski, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Courtney Oliva and Sara Oliabadi, and the Honorable Judge Robert B. Kugler. Plaintiff has also named as Defendants the City of Vineland and Cumberland County, The Daily Journal (of Vineland New Jersey), journalist Deborah M. Marko, and John and Jane Does 1-100. See Complaint at 6-7.
According to the Complaint, the local, state, and federal Defendants allegedly obtained search warrants for Plaintiff's car and residence and obtained statements from Plaintiff about the federal bank robberies in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and also failed to bring him before a judge on the state charges in violation of his due process rights. See Complaint at 9-11.
The shooting occurred on July 16, 2014, and the victim, Eric Bogan, was shot by three black male suspects in Vineland, New Jersey. Complaint at 15. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff was arrested by members of the USMS and the Vineland Police Department for Attempted Murder, Conspiracy, Possession of a Weapon, and Possession of a Weapon by a convicted felon. Id. at 9. Officer Gregory Pacitto of Vineland Police Department signed the arrest warrant, but Plaintiff learned though subsequent investigation that no affidavit of probable cause or recorded statement of probable cause was sworn out by Pacitto. Id. at 26. Byrd's arrest was purportedly based on the statement of a “career criminal,” Chicana Brown, who gave a statement on July 23, 2014, stating that Byrd provided the gun used in the shooting and was in the assailants' vehicle during the crime.[2] An accomplice to the shooting, Shawn Jones, was interviewed on July 25, 2014, and Jones implicated himself and his cousin Eric Bailey in the crime. Jones also allegedly informed the Vineland Police Department that Plaintiff was not involved in this crime and that his vehicle was not at the crime scene either. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff alleges that the members of the Vineland Police Department, acting with and at the direction of members of the FBI, secured warrant to search Plaintiff's car and also kept Plaintiff detained without charging him or bringing him before judge. Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that federal Defendants were investigating him for the bank robberies prior to Bogan's shooting. The local, state, and federal Defendants allegedly exchanged personal information about Plaintiff, including his license plate number, phone number, and address, and fabricated evidence to make it appear that Plaintiff's car was at the scene of Bogan's shooting, despite evidence showing his car was at his workplace. See Complaint at 11-17. Plaintiff further alleges that emails between FBI agents Furey, Brzezinski and Scimeca show that the FBI was directing local police and that members of the Vineland Police Department and that they agreed to falsely arrest and illegally detain the Plaintiff until evidence was developed to either exclude the Plaintiff as the perpetrator of the bank robberies or charge him. See Complaint at 2024.
The Defendants also improperly seized Plaintiff's car, phone, and wallet without warrants on or about July 28, 2014, in order to obtain evidence for the bank robberies. Id. at 30-31. Warrants were later obtained for Plaintiff's home and vehicle in connection with the bank robberies, but Plaintiff was not yet charged with the bank robberies and was not provided with an inventory of the items seized. Id. at 31-32.
Plaintiff also alleges that by July 29, 2014, Vineland Police Officer Scarpa received Plaintiff's timecards and check stubs, showing that Plaintiff was at work on July 26, 2014, and on or about August 5, 2014, Scarpa retrieved video footage showing that Plaintiff and car were at work all day on July 16, 2014. See id. at 32-33.
While Plaintiff remained jailed on the attempted murder charges, federal Defendants continued to use the information they had obtained to investigate him for the bank robberies. Id. at 34.
Plaintiff also alleges there was a three-month delay in his arraignment on the state charges for Bogan's shooting, see Complaint at 33, and he contends that he did not have his first appearance on the charges related to the Bogan shooting until November 19, 2014. Complaint at 38.
Moreover, according to the Complaint, on December 17, 2014, the grand jury returned a “No Bill” as to the attempted murder charges.[3]
Although the state charges were ultimately dropped, Plaintiff had his initial appearance for the federal charges on October 27, 2014, and he was indicted in on the federal charges on August 19, 2015. See Crim. Act. No. 15-409, Dkt. Nos. 5-8, 20. On September 21, 2016, a grand jury returned a superseding seven-count indictment charging Appellant with Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 2113(d) (Counts One, Three and Five), Possession and Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts Two, Four and Six) and Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Count Seven). Crim No. 49.
Throughout his federal criminal proceedings, Plaintiff has sought to show that the federal government was in control of arresting and charging him for Bogan's shooting and conducted an improper investigative detention. On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to suppress his statements and the evidence obtained from his home and vehicle, arguing that it was improperly obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. See generally, Crim. No. 15-409, Dkt. Nos. 46-47; see also Nos. 58, 79. On March 28, 2017, Judge Kugler denied without prejudice the motion for discovery and also denied the motions to suppress the evidence and statements. See Dkt. No. 82.
In the federal matter, Plaintiff was found guilty on counts 1-7 of the Superseding Indictment by a jury verdict on April 15, 2019. Crim. No. 15-409, Dkt. Nos. 216-217. On August 18, 2021, Judge Kugler sentenced Plaintiff to a term of 548 months imprisonment and also denied his various post-trial motions. See Crim. No. 15-409 at Dkt. Nos. 257, 258. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on August 26, 2021. See id. at Dkt. No. 261.
In his direct appeal, Plaintiff sought to overturn his federal convictions based on the same alleged constitutional violations that form the basis for this civil rights Complaint. His counsel on appeal summarizes his due process and Fourth Amendment claims as follows:
Federal and state authorities violated Appellant's due process rights when they conspired to bring baseless state charges against him without probable cause and then held him for months without counsel or presentation to a court. They intentionally did so, to effectuate searches, investigation and interrogation for the federal case, under the pretext of investigating the state case. As a result, evidence seized, and the Appellant's confession should have been suppressed and his case should have been dismissed....
To continue reading
Request your trial