Forsman v. Dykstra

• Decision Date: 28 April 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-8181 (ZNQ) (TJB)
• Parties: PETER J. FORSMAN, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER JESSE DYKSTRA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

1

PETER J. FORSMAN, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER JESSE DYKSTRA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-8181 (ZNQ) (TJB)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 28, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

ZAHID N. QURAISHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants the Borough of Fair Haven Sergeant Jesse Dykstra, and Chief Joseph McGovern of the Fair Haven Police Department (“the Fair Haven Defendants”). (“Motion”, ECF No. 9.) The Fair Haven Defendants filed a Moving Brief in Support of their Motion. (“Moving Br.” ECF No. 9-3.) Defendants the Borough of Little Silver, Scott Lorensen, and Daniel Shaffery joined the Fair Haven Defendants' Motion via Notice of Joinder.^[1](ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff Peter Forsman (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion (“Opp'n”, ECF No. 10) to which the Defendants replied (“Reply”, ECF No 11).

The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the Motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initiated the instant action on April 5, 2021, by filing his Complaint. (“Compl.”, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was the victim of false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force by Defendants Jesse Dykstra of the Fair Haven Police Department and Scott Lorensen of the Little Silver Police Department, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and New Jersey state tort laws. (Id. ¶ 3.)

The Complaint alleges that on May 24, 2019, Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his friend, Chris Meyer (“Meyer”). (Id. ¶ 17.) After Meyer made a right turn at the intersection of Harding Road and Rumson Road in Little Silver, New Jersey, which is controlled by a right turn light, he was pulled over by Officer Volker of the Fair Haven Police Department. (Id.) “During the stop, Meyer was asked to step out of his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Following those tests, officers arrested Meyer for Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”), contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Following Meyer's arrest, Dykstra approached Plaintiff in the passenger seat and advised him that he had to exit Meyer's vehicle and find another way home because the officers were impounding it. (Id. ¶ 19.) As Plaintiff opened the passenger side door of the vehicle to exit-as instructed-Dykstra claimed the door struck him in the chest. (Id. ¶ 20.) According to Plaintiff, however, he merely cracked his door open before Dykstra slammed it shut on him. (Id.) Dykstra then instructed Plaintiff to start walking and leave the scene of Meyer's arrest. (Id. ¶ 21.) Instead of immediately walking away, Plaintiff asked Dykstra a question and, in response, Dykstra and Lorensen grabbed Plaintiff's wrist and pulled him closer to the stopped vehicle in order to place him in handcuffs as he was being arrested for simple assault.

(Id.) The Complaint alleges that “[a]lthough the alleged simple assault indisputably occurred in Little Silver, and Lorensen was on scene to assist with Meyer's DWI stop, [Plaintiff] was ultimately arrested by Dykstra and transported to Fair Haven Police Department to be booked and processed.” (Id. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff alleges that Dykstra did not have jurisdiction to arrest him for an alleged disorderly persons offense that occurred outside of Fair Haven. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff had a pre-existing shoulder injury that was exacerbated when Dykstra grabbed his wrist and twisted and wrenched his arm behind his back, using an unnecessary and unsanctioned compliance hold. (Id. ¶ 24.) Dykstra also slammed the police cruiser door shut on Plaintiff's leg. (Id.) Dykstra ignored Plaintiff's pain complaints en route to the police station. (Id. ¶ 26.) Upon arriving at the Fair Haven police station, Plaintiff was “improperly lifted out of the cruiser by his arm, causing additional injuries to [Plaintiff]'s already injured shoulder.” (Id. ¶ 27.) “The resultant pain caused [Plaintiff] to reflexively scream out an expletive . . . As a result of that involuntary expletive, [Plaintiff] was also charged with Disorderly Conduct, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2a(1).” (Id. ¶ 28.) As Dykstra and Lagrotteria walked Plaintiff in to be processed, Plaintiff explained that he had a torn labrum and that he was in severe pain. (Id. ¶ 29.) Finally, the Fair Haven Police Department called for medical assistance, and Plaintiff was transported to Riverview Medical Center for examination. (Id.)

On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff moved before the Superior Court of New Jersey for an Order dismissing the charges against him as de minimis. (Id. ¶ 30.) In support of that motion, Plaintiff submitted the Mobile Video Recorder (“MVR”) videos provided to him by the Fair Haven Police Department in discovery. (Id.) On July 16, 2019, the Assistant Prosecutor assigned to the matter consented to dismissal after reviewing the charges and evidence against Plaintiff, including the MVR videos. (Id. ¶ 31.) On July 19, 2019, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted Plaintiff's motion and dismissed the charges against him. (Id. ¶ 32.) On August 22, 2019, following the dismissal of the charges against him, Plaintiff served timely Notices of Claim on both Fair Haven and Little Silver. (Id. ¶ 33.) Those Notices of Claim were received and acknowledged by Borough employees on the same date. (Id.) Since that time, Plaintiff has been receiving medical treatment for his injuries. (Id. ¶ 34.) His torn labrum will likely require surgical intervention and is a permanent injury. (Id.) Plaintiff thereafter submitted the nine-count Complaint alleging False Arrest/False Imprisonment (Count I), Unreasonable and Excessive Force (Count II), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count III), Malicious Assault and Battery (Count IV), Assault and Battery (Count V), Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage (Count VI), Negligent Training and Supervision (Count VII), New Jersey Civil Rights Violations (Count VIII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations (Count IX).

II. JURISDICTION

The Court has original jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the Complaint's assertion of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Complaint's other state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

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 motion to dismiss on the pleadings, courts “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). Under such a standard, the factual allegations set forth in a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Indeed, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to ‘show' such an entitlement with its facts.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009).

However, Rule 12(b)(6) only requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The complaint must include “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest the required element. This does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage, but instead simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 (citation and quotations omitted); Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[A] claimant does not have to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. The pleading standard is not akin to a probability requirement; to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint merely has to state a plausible claim for relief.” (citation and quotations omitted)).

In sum, under the current pleading regime, when a court considers a dismissal motion, three sequential steps must be taken: first, “it must take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (quotations omitted). Next, the court “should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. (quotations omitted). Lastly, “when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. (quotations and brackets omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. COUNTS II, VIII, AND IX

Defendants argue that Counts VIII (New Jersey Civil Rights Violations) and IX (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations) of the Complaint-Plaintiff's constitutional claims-must be dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Moving Br. at 9.) Specifically, Defendants argue that a “plaintiff generally cannot maintain a § 1983 action unless the ‘termination of the prior criminal...