Guzman v. City of Newark
| Decision Date | 23 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20cv6276 (EP) (JSA) |
| Parties | JOSE GUZMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff Jose Guzman (“Plaintiff') brings this civil rights action against the City of Newark (“City”) Newark Police Department (“Newark PD”), three Newark PD Detectives Feliberto Padilla (“Detective Padilla”), Richard Pisano (“Detective Pisano”), and Michael Krusznis (“Detective Krusznis”),[1] and three fictitious parties,[2] following two separate incidents in 2014 and 2016 that resulted in Plaintiffs arrest and prosecution. Defendants move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.E. 47. The Court decides the motion without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); L.Civ.R.78(b). For the reasons set forth below Defendants' motion will be GRANTED.
On February 9, 2014, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Plaintiff stopped for food at Tony's Marisqueria in Newark, New Jersey. D.E. 41 “TAC” ¶ 13. Upon exiting Tony's Marisqueria, Plaintiff witnessed “a commotion” involving gunfire. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that he was not involved in said commotion, but he was nonetheless shot in the legs. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. Plaintiff lost consciousness. Id. ¶ 16. He awoke in the hospital. Id. While recovering in the hospital, Detective Padilla, and other unnamed police officers, who were responsible for investigating the February 9, 2014 incident (“2014 Incident”), visited Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 18, 20. At that time, Plaintiff alleges that he was told that he was being considered a victim of a crime and was asked whether he could identify who shot him. Id. ¶ 20.
On February 26, 2014, upon his release from the hospital, Plaintiff was arrested in connection with the 2014 Incident. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff was held for approximately one week at a Newark police station before being transferred to the Essex County Jail. Id. ¶ 24.
On March 10, 2015, a grand jury indicted Plaintiff for aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon in connection with the 2014 Incident. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff alleges that the indictment was based upon Detective Padilla's intentionally false testimony. Id. ¶ 26. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Detective Padilla testified that a surveillance video of the 2014 Incident clearly depicted Plaintiff as one of the shooters, despite the allegedly “poor quality” video. Id. ¶¶ 19, 26. Plaintiff was prosecuted for approximately two years before the indictment was dismissed on June 8, 2016. Id. ¶ 28.
On June 18, 2016, ten days after the indictment related to the 2014 Incident was dismissed, an incident, involving a physical altercation and gunfire, occurred on Taylor Street in Newark, New Jersey (“2016 Incident”). Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges that he was not involved in the 2016 Incident. Id. ¶ 30. Detective Pisano and other unnamed police officers were responsible for investigating the 2016 Incident. Id. ¶ 32. The investigation included initial witness interviews. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff alleges that he was not identified in these initial interviews. Id. But in a second witness interview, Miguel Robles Perez identified Plaintiff as an individual involved in the 2016 Incident. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff alleges that Robles Perez was “forced, threatened and coerced” by Detective Pisano, and the other unnamed police officers, to identify Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. Plaintiff further alleges that Detective Pisano, and the other unnamed police officers, in agreement with Detective Padilla and Detective Krusznis, fabricated Plaintiff's involvement in the 2016 Incident as “revenge and retribution” for the recently dismissed charges related to the 2014 Incident and Plaintiff's prior contact with Defendants and other Newark PD members. Id. ¶ 37. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested on June 24, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 38-39.
On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury for unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose in connection with the 2016 Incident. Id. ¶ 42. Plaintiff alleges that the indictment was based upon Detective Pisano's intentionally false testimony. Id. ¶ 41. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Detective Pisano testified that Miguel Robles Perez' properly identified Plaintiff as the shooter in the 2016 Incident, despite having obtained the identification through threats and coercion. Id.
On that same day, charges related to the 2014 Incident were presented to the grand jury for a second time. Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiff was indicted again, based on Detective Padilla's allegedly false testimony. Id. ¶ 44. At this time, Plaintiff was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, riot/failure to disperse, and perjury. Id. ¶ 45.
On May 25, 2018, all charges against Plaintiff related to the 2014 Incident and the 2016 Incident were dismissed on the prosecutor's own motion. Id. ¶ 46.
On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Initial Complaint, asserting claims arising out of his respective arrests and prosecutions for the 2014 Incident and the 2016 Incident. D.E. 1. Plaintiff has since filed an Amended Complaint, D.E. 10, a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), D.E. 26, and a TAC, D.E. 41. The TAC contains claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) based upon alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. TAC ¶¶ 51-57. Plaintiff also brings claims for conspiracy, id. ¶¶ 58-61, and municipal liability, id. ¶¶ 62-72, pursuant to Section 1983.
Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff's TAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court accepts all well-pled facts as true, construes the complaint in the plaintiffs favor, and determines “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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.” Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010).[4] To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, the plaintiffs claims must be facially plausible, meaning that the well-pled facts “allow[] 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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). The allegations must be “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “[A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679. Finally, “[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to Section 1983, which provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory [] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Section 1983 is a remedial statute designed to redress deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and federal laws. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 n.3 (1979). To state a claim for relief pursuant to Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege a “deprivation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional deprivation was caused by a person acting under the color of state law.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996)); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1998); Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).
Here, Plaintiff asserts several claims pursuant to Section 1983, including conspiracy, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, and Monell liability.
Although Defendants do not contend that Plaintiffs false arrest and false imprisonment claims should be dismissed as time-barred,[5] the Court will sua sponte dismiss these claims as untimely.
“A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds where the time-bar is clear on the face of the complaint and no development of the factual record is required.” Bartley v. New Jersey, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13668, at *2 n.2 (3d Cir. May 20, 2022) (citing Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006)); see also Demby v. Cty. of Camden, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32077, at *3 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Demby v. Cty. of Camden, NJ, 142 S.Ct. 1163 (Feb. 22, 2022) (citations omitted); Lawson v. City of Vineland, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205993, at *3-4 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2022) ().
The statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim is governed by New Jersey's two-year...
To continue reading
Request your trial