Calabrese v. Tierney
| Decision Date | 27 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 19-12526 (FLW) |
| Parties | ANTHONY CALABRESE, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE TIERNEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*
:
Plaintiff Anthony Calabrese ("Plaintiff" or "Calabrese") alleges that defendants Joseph Coronato, Michelle Tierney, Marlene Lynch Ford and Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, in their official capacities; John Does 1 to 4; Bernardino L. Alvarado ("Alvarado"); and Ocean County (Alvarado and Ocean County collectively, "Moving Defendants") violated his civil rights.1 Plaintiff asserts violation of both federal and New Jersey state civil rights statutes based on alleged alterations of his criminal history in regards to a 2012 conviction, and an allegedly retaliatory motor vehicle stop occurring in July 2018. Alvarado moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 12(b)(6), and Ocean County filed a motion for summary judgement in lieu of an answer, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff opposes both motions.2 For the reasons set forth below, Counts One, Two, and Three, Plaintiff's claims stemming from the error in his criminal history, are barred by the statute of limitations, and dismissed with prejudice against Moving Defendants. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Ocean County is GRANTED on those counts and Ocean County is dismissed as a defendant. Defendant Alvarado's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in PART. Counts Eight and Nine, Plaintiff's medical mistreatment claims, are dismissed without prejudice; Counts Four, Five, Six, and Seven, the remaining counts against Alvarado, may proceed.
The instant lawsuit stems from two separate incidents: alleged alterations of Plaintiff's criminal record and an alleged retaliatory motor vehicle stop in July 2018.
On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff, a registered nurse, was arrested by Lacey Township police and issued a municipal court summons for violating various New Jersey statutes related to thepossession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia.4 See ECF No. 4, Am. Compl. ¶¶6,12. On April 11, 2012, Plaintiff was indicted on the following charges by an Ocean County grand jury: 1) a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:35-10(a)(3) for possessing more than 50 grams of marijuana; 2) a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:35- 5(b)(11) for possessing less than five pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute; and 3) a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:35- 10(a)(1) for possessing cocaine. Id. at ¶7. Thereafter, on August 19, 2013, Plaintiff pled guilty to the second count of the indictment, possession of less than five pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute, pursuant to a plea agreement with the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office. Id. at ¶9.
In or around October 2016, Plaintiff received a job offer from a nursing facility, and during the background check for that position, Plaintiff discovered that his criminal record erroneously indicated that he had pled guilty to N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:35-10(A)(1), possession of meth, heroin and LSD with intent to distribute, rather than marijuana possession. Id. at ¶10. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was offered another position. Id. at ¶11. Both job offers were rescinded after the results of the background check were received. Id. at ¶¶12-13.
Plaintiff's attorney contacted the Ocean County vicinage of the New Jersey Superior Court, and informed the judge who had overseen the case of the discrepancy in Plaintiff's criminal history. Id. at ¶15. The next day, a "Change of Judgement of Conviction" was generated, which was purportedly intended to fix the error. Id. at. ¶16. Although the "Change of Judgement of Conviction" remedied the error as to the ultimate charge to which Plaintiff pled, Plaintiff alleges that it did not fully address his concerns, because the amended Judgement of Conviction"erroneously and falsely stated that the original charge against Plaintiff, when arrested in January 2012, was manufacture and/or distribution of 'meth/heroin/LSD.'" Id. at ¶16. Plaintiff asserts that the changes to his judgment of conviction could only be made by a person "with access to the Promis/Gavel system," which New Jersey utilizes to track criminal cases. Id. at ¶18. Plaintiff asserts that, to date, his criminal record still falsely reflects an arrest for manufacture and/or distribution of meth/heroin/LSD, even though he "has never been accused, formally or informally, of any offenses involving any CDS other than marijuana." Id. at ¶¶26-27.5
On July 7, 2018, Plaintiff's friend, Michael Claudi ("Claudi"), borrowed Plaintiff's vehicle, and was pulled over by Brick Township police. Id. at ¶30. During the motor vehicle stop, the officers discovered that Claudi's license was suspended, therefore, they arrested him and the vehicle was taken to an Exxon gas station.6 Id. at ¶32. There, Plaintiff allegedly observed "Brick Township Detectives, including Defendant Alvarado, around and in the back seat of the truck, ripping and throwing paperwork from his patient files." Id. at ¶32.
The next day, after obtaining the keys to the vehicle from the jail, Plaintiff went to retrieve his vehicle from the gas station and discovered that his personal effects had been removed fromhis glove compartment, and many of his patient files and photographs were damaged or destroyed. Id. at ¶33. Plaintiff also observed scratches around the exterior of his vehicle and noted that "multiple sterile surgical emergency kits" were missing. Id. Later that day, Plaintiff visited the Brick Township police station and filed a written complaint regarding the damage. Id. at. ¶35.
On July 11, 2018, a detective from the Brick Police Department Internal Affairs ("IA") unit contacted Plaintiff to discuss the damage. Id. at ¶36. The detective informed Plaintiff that the IA unit would finalize its report and contact the town's insurance carrier regarding the scratches on the vehicle. Id. A few days later, on July 16, 2018, Plaintiff was driving through Brick on his way to the bank with a friend, when he "observed flashing lights and sirens behind him." Id. at ¶37. He pulled over to allow the emergency vehicles to pass, but a police car and two other unmarked cars pulled up behind him. Id. Two Brick Township police officers, including Alvarado allegedly "jumped out of the vehicle with guns drawn, demanding that Plaintiff get out of the vehicle." Id. When Plaintiff complied, Alvarado supposedly pointed his gun at Plaintiff's head and said "[t]his is what happens when you make an IA complaint." Id. Then, Alvarado handcuffed and searched Plaintiff, taking $1,050 from Plaintiff's pocket. Id. at ¶38. Alvarado also allegedly took $80 from Plaintiff's companion, as well. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the officers repeatedly said, "[y]ou know what this is about." Id. at ¶40.
Following the search, Plaintiff was placed under arrest and taken to the Brick police department.7 Id. at ¶41. Once at the police department, Plaintiff supposedly informed the officersseveral times that he was hypoglycemic and felt his blood sugar levels dropping. Id. The officers disregarded his complaints and Plaintiff eventually lost consciousness. Id. After plaintiff lost consciousness, EMTs were called and Plaintiff was provided with instant glucose which revived him. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff was transported to Ocean Medical Center, allegedly over the officers' objections. Id. Once Plaintiff was stable, he was released from the hospital and sent back to the police station. Id. From there, he was transported to the Ocean County jail. Id. at ¶42. Plaintiff alleges that while incarcerated, he was repeatedly denied bail due to a "prior arrest for indictable offense," and attributes the denial to the alleged alteration of his criminal record. Id. at ¶43. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff plead guilty to charges of third degree possession of stolen property (a blank prescription form) and fourth degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Id. at ¶44.
On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit alleging the following claims against all Defendants, stemming from the alleged falsification of his criminal record: Count 1, Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Due Process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985; Count 2, Denial of Due Process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; Count 3, Denial of Due Process in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §10:6-1. Plaintiff also asserts the following claims against Defendant Alvarado and "the John Doe" defendants, stemming from the allegedly retaliatory traffic stop and his treatment while detained in the Brick Township Police Department: Count 4, Denial of Due Process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; Count 5, Denial of Due Process in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §10:6-1; Count 6, Violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; Count 7, Violation of Plaintiff's Free Speech Rights, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §10:6-1; Count 8, a Violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; and Count 9,Violation of the Right to be Free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §10:6-1.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right on May 25, 2019. See ECF No. 4. Thereafter, Alvarado filed the instant motion to dismiss, and Ocean County filed the instant motion for summary judgment.8 After the motions were filed, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which was denied by the Magistrate Judge on December 2, 2019. See ECF Nos. 10, 17
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial