Castillo-Perez v. City of Elizabeth
| Decision Date | 21 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2:11-6958 (KM) (CLW) |
| Parties | ANTONIO CASTILLO-PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, THE ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE KEVIN T. MCDONOUGH, DETECTIVE DANIEL GEDDES, SARGEANT TIMOTHY GEDDES, POLICE OFFICER CARMINE GIANETTA, POLICE OFFICER JORGE JOAQUIM, RONALD SIMON, UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, FRANK TARRENTINO, SPECIAL AGENT WILLIAM STRENSKE, and THE UNITED STATES Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
On November 28, 2011, the plaintiff, Antonio Castillo-Perez, filed a Complaint, Docket No. 1 ("Compl."), arising out of a 2010 arrest and detention. Originally assigned to the Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh, the matter was reassigned to me on August 1, 2012. (Docket No. 33). The Complaint asserts twelve causes of action against law enforcement agents and the federal and state governments, or government entities, that employ them. Such causes of action, brought under a specific Constitutional provision against the persons whose acts are complained of, are typically straightforward. Brought as more general due process claims or against government entities, however, they face significant legal barriers, such as sovereign immunity, which have not been overcome here. My decision herein as to the many dispositive motions filed bydefendants is intended to focus the case on its core allegations: that officers of the Elizabeth Police Department, in cooperation with two agents of the DEA, arrested and detained Castillo-Perez without probable cause, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and analogous State Constitutional provisions. Of course, I do not prejudge the merits; solely for purposes of these motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c), the allegations of the Complaint are accepted as true.
Currently before the Court are dispositive motions filed by the following defendants:
The plaintiff, Castillo-Perez, through his counsel, has filed an omnibus opposition to these motions (Docket No. 37).3
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part. The claims that will remain are Counts I, II, III and VIII, to the extent they assert federal and state constitutional claims against the Elizabeth Police Officers, and Count IX, to the extent it asserts a Fourth Amendment Bivens claim against the DEA Agents. I will administratively terminate without prejudice the motions for summary judgment. They may be refiled or reinstated upon completion of targeted discovery to explore the circumstances surrounding the stop and arrest that gave rise to this action.
Solely for purposes of the motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, I base this statement of facts on the allegations of the Complaint. See Section II.A.1, infra. They have not yet been tested by any fact finder.
On June 8, 2010, Sabin Sanchez invited Castillo-Perez to take a ride with him to Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Castillo-Perez accepted. Compl. ¶ 17. Later that day, Castillo-Perez was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by Sanchez, en route from Brooklyn, New York to Elizabeth. Compl. ¶ 4. Sanchez told Castillo-Perez that he planned to visit a house on Jersey Avenue in Elizabeth. When they arrived, Castillo-Perez did not visit the house with Sanchez, but instead went to a nearby restaurant. When Sanchez was ready to leave, he called Castillo-Perez, and both returned to the car to drive back to Brooklyn. Id. "Almost immediately thereafter, approximately six or more police officers" arrived in police vehicles, ordered Castillo-Perez out of Sanchez's car, and arrested him. Id. ¶ 5.
Castillo-Perez "has very little command of English." Id. ¶ 21. He alleges that certain of the Elizabeth Police Officers shouted commands that he could not comprehend. They physically removed him from the car and certain officers punched him in the kidney. He was then handcuffed. Officers then opened the trunk of Sanchez's vehicle and removed a box, which was later found to contain narcotics. The officers also removed from a "pocket or pouch" attached to the back of the driver's seat a black bag that contained money. Castillo-Perez alleges that, at the time, he did not know what was inside the box or the bag. Id. ¶ 22, 23.
Castillo-Perez was arrested and imprisoned from June 8, 2010, through December 13, 2010, a period of 189 days. Id. ¶ 26. He was charged with several offenses: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:35:5a(1); 2C:35-5b(1)); Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:35-10a(1)); and Obstructing the Administration of Law (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:29-1). Id. ¶¶ 26-27 (citing Union County Indictment No. 10-10-010561). On April 11, 2011, however, the Indictment was dismissed. Id. ¶ 27.
Castillo-Perez filed this action on November 28, 2011. He brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, as well as the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the federal Tort Claims Act.
He names as defendants the following:
The Complaint asserts the following claims:
(1) violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Elizabeth, the Elizabeth Police Department, and the Elizabeth Police Officers (Count I);
(2) violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act/State Constitutional Claim against Defendants Elizabeth, the Elizabeth Police Department, and the Elizabeth Police Officers (Count II);
(3) False Arrest and Illegal Imprisonment against the Elizabeth Police Officers (Count III);
(4) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendants Elizabeth and the Elizabeth Police Department (Monell Claim) (Count IV);
(5) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 against all Defendants (Count V);
(6) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 against all Defendants (Count VI);
(7) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1986 against all Defendants (Count VII);
(8) Malicious Prosecution against Elizabeth, the Elizabeth Police Department, and the Elizabeth Police Officers (Count VIII);
(9) Fourth Amendment Biuens Claim against the DEA and the DEA Agents (Count IX);
(10) Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Bivens Claim against the DEA Agents (Count X);
(11) Fifth Amendment Due Process Bivens Claim against the DEA Agents (Count XI); and
(12) Federal Torts Claim Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §1346(b) against the United States (Count XII).4
Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must take the allegations of the complaint as true and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) ().
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) does not require that a complaint contain detailed factual allegations. Nevertheless, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the complaint's factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level, so that a claim is "plausible on its face." Id. at 570; see also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). That facial-plausibility standard is met "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). While "[t]he...
To continue reading
Request your trial