Coleman v. City of Long Branch, Civ. No. 15-7314 (FLW) (LHG)
| Decision Date | 22 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 15-7314 (FLW) (LHG) |
| Parties | WILLIAM COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*
In this action, pro se Plaintiff William Coleman ("Plaintiff" or "Coleman"), a prisoner incarcerated at South Woods State Prison, asserts various civil rights claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as common-law tort claims, arising out of a motor vehicle stop, his arrest, and a subsequent search of a motel room in which he was staying. (Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1). Presently before the Court is Defendants the City of Long Branch (the "City"), Lt. Grippaldi, Det. Brian A. Garrett ("Det. Garrett"), Det. Ross H. Zotti ("Det. Zotti"), Det. Brown, Det. House, Officer Robert R. Bataille ( ), Officer Patrick D. Joyce ( ), Officer Vecchino ( ), and Officer Rodriguez's ( ) (collectively, "Defendants") motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Mot., ECF No. 24). Defendants' motion is unopposed. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
At approximately 11:50 p.m. on the night of August 14, 2014, Coleman was traveling as a passenger in a vehicle operated by non-party Jillian Ribeiro. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 19; Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ( ), ECF No. 24-2, ¶¶ 1-5). As the vehicle passed through Long Branch, New Jersey, Ofc. Bataille observed Ribeiro fail to stop at a traffic light, and he further observed "the passenger duck down to attempt to conceal his identity and the driver look back at his patrol car as she passed."2 (ECF No. 24-2 ¶ 2). As a result, Ofc. Bataille illuminated the lights on his patrol car to make a motor vehicle stop. (Id. ¶ 3; see also ECF No. 1 ¶ 22-23). In response, Ribeiro turned into the Ocean Court Motel and brought the vehicle to a stop. (Id.; ECF No. 24-2 ¶ 5). Subsequently, Ribeiro and Coleman exited the vehicle, and Ofc. Bataille ordered them to return. (ECF No. 24-2 ¶ 5). After initially returning to the vehicle and opening the passenger door, Coleman closed it and began to walk away. (Id. ¶ 6). Once again, Ofc. Bataille ordered Coleman to stop, and, when Coleman did not, Ofc. Bataille informed Coleman that he was under arrest. (Id.).
After being advised that he was under arrest, Coleman broke into a sprint, with Ofc. Bataille in pursuit. (Id. ¶ 7). As Coleman fled, Ofc. Bataille observed him "throw objects from his pockets onto the ground." (Id.). By this time, Ofc. Joyce had been summoned and pulled his vehicle into Coleman's path of flight. (Id. ¶ 8). Coleman came into contact with Ofc. Joyce's police vehicle, "placing his hands on the hood, spinning around [and] then running in a different direction." (Id.). Ofc. Joyce then exited his vehicle and tackled Coleman. (Id. ¶ 9). Thereafter, Ofc. Vecchino "assisted Officer Joyce in subduing Plaintiff." (Id.).
Despite admonitions to stop resisting, Coleman tried to pull his hands away from the officers. (Id. ¶ 10). Nonetheless, the officers eventually secured Coleman's hands behind his back and placed him in handcuffs. (Id.). Ofc. Bataille then "picked up the items [that] Plaintiff was throwing out of his pockets," consisting of a cellular telephone, a battery for a cellular telephone, and a driver's license. (Id. ¶ 11). In the same area, Ofc. Rodriguez found "two plastic bags suspected to be cocaine and a pipe used to smoke cocaine." (Id. ¶ 12).
Following his arrest, Ofc. Joyce "processed" Coleman and found "three large plastic bags suspected to be cocaine, nine wax envelopes suspected to be heroin, cash and a key to [a] motel room." (Id. ¶ 15). Several of the officers then proceeded to the subject motel, where the motel's night manager confirmed that Ribeiro had rented a room, in which she and Coleman were staying. (Id. ¶ 16). The night manager then gave the officers consent to search the room. (Id. ¶ 17). During the course of the motel room search, Det. Garrett found "drug paraphernalia including plastic bags, [a] scale, heroin packing, razor blades and a notebook ledger." (Id. ¶ 18). Det. Zotti, who was also present at the time of the motel room search, "stated that distribution of narcotics was evident and that cocaine was also recovered." (Id. ¶ 19).
Following his arrest, Coleman was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance ("CDS"), possession of CDS with intent to distribute, possession of CDS with intent to distribute while within 500 feet of a public park, and resisting arrest. (Id. ¶ 21).
On October 5, 2015, Coleman, proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint, alleging that Defendants' actions during the course of the motor vehicle stop, arrest, and search violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Coleman also asserted various tort law claims. (Id.). More specifically, in the Complaint, Coleman alleges that, "[a]s soon as [Ofc. Bataille] exited his vehicle [in in the motel parking lot,] he upholstered [sic] his firearm and pointed it directly at [Coleman] telling him not to move." (Id. ¶ 24). Coleman avers that he feared for his life based on his "history of assaults from various members of the Long Branch Police Department," and thus, panicked and began to run. (Id.). According to the Complaint, as Coleman took flight, Ofc. Joyce struck Coleman with his patrol vehicle, with the resultant impact throwing Coleman "about 25 feet [and] knocking [him] unconscious." (Id.). Coleman further alleges that, while he was on the ground, "injured, unable to move, and semi-conscious," Ofc. Joyce, Ofc. Vecchino, and Ofc. Bataille "viciously attacked" him, landing kicks and various blows. (Id. ¶ 26). Coleman avers that Ofc. Rodriguez and two John Doe officers then verbally abused him and handcuffed him. (Id. ¶ 27). Coleman further alleges that, despite his request for medical attention, all Defendants failed to provide him with medical care or take him to a hospital. (Id. ¶¶ 27-29). Finally, Coleman alleges that the search of the motel room was illegal. (Id. ¶ 28).
Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts numerous claims against all Defendants, which claims often overlap and are far from a model in clarity. Specifically, the Complaint asserts: (i) that "the intentional beatings of plaintiff violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, as well as his "statutory civil rights," (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 37-40, 43-44); (ii) that it was "the policy and practice" of the City to "authorize certain officers . . . to cover up the use of excessive force despite the lack of probable cause to arrest or any actual violation justifying his arrest" and "to authorize certain officers . . . to deny and prevent prompt medical treatment of injured persons," and that Defendants failed to train, direct, supervise, or control officers to prevent violation of Coleman's rights, (id. ¶¶ 45-50); (iii) that Defendants conspired to violate Coleman's civil rights, (id. ¶¶ 51-52); (iv) a claim for assault and battery, (id. ¶¶ 53-57); (v) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, (id. ¶¶ 58-61); (vi) an excessive force claim, (id. ¶¶ 67-75); (vii) a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment, as well as for malicious abuse of process, (id. ¶¶ 81-84); (viii) a claim for inadequate medical treatment, (id. ¶¶ 85-87); (ix) a claim against Ofc. Rodriguez and two Doe Defendants for failure to intervene to prevent Ofc. Bataille and Ofc. Joyce from using excessive force, (id. ¶¶ 41-42); and (x) claims solely against the City claiming liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, based on the City's policies and practices, as well as the City's alleged failure to train, supervise, and control its police officers. (Id. ¶¶ 62-66, 76-80). As relief, Coleman seeks compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages3, plus attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at p. 29).
Upon an initial screening of the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court dismissed with prejudice Coleman's respondeat superior claims. (Mem. & Order, ECF No. 3, ¶ 7). The Court also dismissed without prejudice all claims that Coleman asserted against Mayor Adam Schneider and Police Director Jason Roebuck. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). The Court further dismissed without prejudice Coleman's claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11). The Court permitted the remaining claims to proceed. (See id.).
Defendants answered the Complaint on May 24, 2016. (Ans., ECF No. 9) On August 16, 2016, Defendants filed a motion that was labeled as a motion to dismiss, but included a statement of undisputed material facts and sought summary judgment. (Mot., ECF No. 11). As a result of these inconsistencies, the Court denied that motion without prejudice and issued an order for Coleman to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute, under Local Civil Rule 41.1. (Mem. & Order, ECF No. 16). Shortly thereafter, Coleman submitted two letters indicating that he "intends to proceed with this action." (ECF Nos. 17-18).
On August 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge in this case issued an order requiring the completion of all discovery by December 15, 2017, the filing of any dispositive motions no later than January 12, 2018, and the submission of pretrial memoranda in early February 2018. (Order, ECF No. 22). Coleman made a somewhat ambiguous two-page filing on January 11, 2018, which consisted of a cover letter stating, "Please find enclosed plaintiff's pretrial memorandum submission . . . dispositive motion," and a proposed order that contained no specific request for relief. (ECF No. 25). The Court never received a pretrial memorandum from Coleman. On January 12, 2018, Defendants filed the instant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial