Hockaday v. N.J. Attorney General's Office
| Decision Date | 14 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 16-0762 (KM) |
| Parties | AARON HOCKADAY, Plaintiff, v. NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
:
Aaron Hockaday brings this civil rights action, which focuses on the alleged excessive use of force in connection with his arrest. The defendants fall into two groups: those associated with the State of New Jersey and those associated with the City of Newark. Now before the court are the State Defendants' and the Newark Defendants' motions (ECF nos. 4, 14) to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated herein, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
The Complaint arises from an incident on May 13, 2014. Hockaday was pulled over for a traffic infraction, but the stop got out of hand, and he ended up being arrested and indicted. In connection with that criminal prosecution, Hockaday challenged the validity of his arrest and disputed the officers' account of the circumstances. After a bench trial on downgraded charges, he was convicted of resisting arrest and hindering prosecution, but acquitted of assault.
In response to the motion to dismiss, Hockaday has voluntarily dismissed certain allegations and claims, narrowing and focusing his Complaint. (See Section I.A, infra.) Reflecting those concessions, the following summary omits certain allegations. The allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true for purposes of the motions to dismiss insofar as they are addressed to the fact of the complaint. See pp. 4-5, infra.
One group consists of defendants associated with the State of New Jersey (the " "). The complaint names the Office of the State Attorney General and the State of New Jersey, Division of State Police ("NJSP"). Joseph Fuentes is sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of the NJSP. (Cplt. ¶ 5)1 Also named as defendants are three State police officers: Det. Joseph Palach, Sgt. Ruane, and Trooper Torres. (Cplt. ¶¶ 7, 9, 10)
A second group consists of defendants associated with the City of Newark (the "Newark Defendants").2 The complaint names the City and two Newark police officers: Det. Rivera and Det. Armand. (Cplt. ¶¶ 8, 11, 12) Det. Marcelli, is identified as a Newark police officer, but according the City, he is actually employed by the Essex County Prosecutor's Office. (ECF no. 14-5 at 3 ¶8)
All of the defendant officers were assigned to the New Jersey Attorney General's TIDE/TAG initiative, a joint program involving the NPD, NJSP, the Essex County Prosecutor's Office, and other law enforcement agencies. (Cplt. ¶ 14)
On May 13, 2014, Hockaday was driving his 2012 Jeep Cherokee on Peshine Avenue, near the corner of Madison Avenue in Newark, New Jersey. Palach and Rivera stopped him for a traffic infraction. (Cplt. ¶¶ 19-21)3 Hockaday answered questions and produced his driver's license. The officers later falsely claimed that he initially produced the license of another person. (Cplt. ¶ 23)
Palach ordered Hockaday out of the vehicle, but refused to answer when Hockaday asked him why. (Cplt. ¶ 24) Palach tried to pull Hockaday out of the vehicle as Hockaday held the steering wheel. Palach then "grabbed Plaintiff's genitals in an aggressive manner." (Cplt. ¶ 25)
Bystanders gathered, some of them recording the events on their cell phones. Palach called for backup; Ruane, Torres, Armand and Marcelli arrived. (Cplt. ¶¶ 26-27) Hockaday was still in the driver's seat. Ruane pushed Hockaday from the passenger side, while Rivera and Palach pulled him from the driver's side. (Cplt. ¶ 28)
Hockaday was thrown to the pavement, where he was held down by (he believes) Rivera. Palach punched Hockaday in the head and face ten to twenty times, while the other officers did nothing. (Cplt. ¶¶ 29-30)
Hockaday was arrested. While he was being transported to the Essex County Narcotics Task Force ("ECNTF") building, Palach verbally abused him and grabbed him by the throat for five seconds. (Cplt. ¶ 31) Despite Hockaday's complaints, the police took almost an hour to transport him to University Hospital in Newark, where he was treated for his injuries. (Cplt. ¶¶ 32-34)
As narrowed, see Section I.A, infra, the counts of the Complaint are as follows:
Count One (42 U.S. § 1983) alleges that the Officers used excessive force, causing Hockaday to suffer a broken nose, concussion, damaged eyesight, and mental distress and anguish.
Count Three (42 U.S.C. § 1985) alleges that the Officers, as well as the NJSP and the City, conspired to violate Hockaday's civil right to be free of excessive force.
Count Five (42 U.S.C. § 1983) alleges negligent hiring, training and supervision of the Officers by the City and the NJSP.
Count Six (N.J. Civil Rights Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2) alleges use of excessive force in violation of the State constitution.4
The complaint seeks damages only.
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) provides for a motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 437-38 (D.N.J. 1999). Rule 12(b)(1) challenges may be either facial or factual attacks. See 2 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 12.30[4] (3d ed. 2007); Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). A facial challenge asserts that the complaint does not allege sufficient grounds to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Iwanowa, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 438. A court considering such a facial challenge assumes that the allegations in the complaint are true, and may dismiss the complaint only if it nevertheless appears that the plaintiff will not be able to assert a colorable claim of subject matter jurisdiction. Cardio-Med. Assoc., Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr., 721 F.2d 68, 75 (3d Cir. 1983); Iwanowa, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 438. A factual attack,on the other hand, permits the Court to consider evidence extrinsic to the pleadings. Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000), holding modified on other grounds by Simon v. United States, 341 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2003). Thus "Rule 12(b)(1) does not provide plaintiffs the procedural safeguards of Rule 12(b)(6), such as assuming the truth of the plaintiff's allegations." CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 144 (3d Cir. 2008).
FED. R. CIV. P. 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 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 motion to dismiss, a court must take all allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) ().
FED. R. CIV. P. 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 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 factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level, such that it is "plausible on its face." See id. at 570; see also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). A claim has "facial plausibility 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 plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement' ... it asks for more than a sheer possibility." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, interpreting the Twombly/Iqbal standard, has provided a three-step process for analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion:
To determine whether a complaint meets the pleading standard, our analysis unfolds in three steps. First, we outline the elements a plaintiff must plead to a state a claim for relief. See [Iqbal, 556 U.S.] at 675; Argueta [v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60, 73 (3d Cir. 2011)]. Next, we peel away those allegations that are no more than conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Argueta, 643 F.3d at 73. Finally, we look for well-pled factual allegations, assume their veracity, and then "determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Argueta, 643 F.3d at 73. This last step is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
In the ordinary course, I would first consider the parties' jurisdictional contentions. Here, however, I must first define the claims that Hockaday is asserting. In response to the motion to dismiss, Hockaday has agreed to voluntarily dismiss certain claims and theories. I will grant the motion to dismiss those claims on consent. In addition, I will permit the plaintiff to substitute the City of Newark for the Newark Police Department as defendant.
As filed, the Complaint named former Newark Police Director Sheila Coley as a defendant; claims against her have now been dropped. All claims for punitive damages against public entities...
To continue reading
Request your trial