Morales v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 26 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civ. Action No. 21-07263 (FLW) |
| Parties | Juan MORALES, Plaintiff, v. Officer Travis MAXWELL, in his individual capacity, and Officer Frederick Bender, in His individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Arun LaVine, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Plaintiff.
Marco Di Stefano, The City of Trenton Law Department, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Juan Morales ("Plaintiff") brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants, Officers Travis Maxwell and Frederick Bender ("Defendants"), violated his constitutional rights while arresting him during an incident in Trenton, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants arrested him unlawfully after he shouted a profanity while recording the officers executing another arrest near his home. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment (Count One), a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Two), and violations of the Fourth Amendment based on unlawful arrest (Count Three), excessive force (Count Four), and failure to intervene (Count Five). Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Motion"). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is denied with respect to Counts One through Four, and the Motion is granted with respect to Count Five, which is dismissed without prejudice. Consistent with this Opinion, Plaintiff may replead Count Five in a second amended complaint.
The relevant facts are derived from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and assumed as true for the purposes of this motion.
On April 18, 2019, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Plaintiff was standing outside his mother-in-law's house in Trenton, New Jersey, when his brother, Javier, approached from around the corner. Am. Compl. ¶ 10. Shortly thereafter, officers from the Trenton Police Department, including Officers Travis Maxwell ("Officer Maxwell") and Frederick Bender ("Officer Bender"), placed Javier and another individual under arrest, and Plaintiff began filming the encounter. Id. ¶¶ 11–12, 19.1 Plaintiff was standing with a group of observers. Id. ¶ 13. Officer Maxwell approached the group "aggressively" and told them to Id. When one observer told Officer Maxwell that the group was not obliged to leave, Officer Maxwell directed the group to "Go stand over there, now." Id. ¶¶ 14–15. Officer Maxwell explained, "You not listening is illegal," although the group was allegedly complying with Officer Maxwell's directions to stand away from the area where the officers were executing an arrest. Id. ¶ 16. Officer Maxwell pointed to an area that was further from where the group was standing and stated, "You can videotape over there." Id. Plaintiff allegedly responded, "I live right here," pointing to the area where he was standing. Id. ¶ 17.
Officer Maxwell returned to the area where officers had detained Javier and the other individual. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff shouted to Javier, "What are they bagging you for?" Id. ¶ 20. Officer Maxwell allegedly became "irate" and returned to the group of bystanders, who were still standing aside as instructed. Id. ¶ 21. Officer Maxwell told the group, "We're not going to stand out here and debate with you" and that "If you obstruct the investigation one more time, you're going to jail." Id. ¶¶ 21–22.
As other officers led Javier toward a police car, Officer Maxwell retrieved what appeared to be a bag containing a white substance from under the vehicle next to which Javier had been standing. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff shouted an objection that the officers had unfairly attributed the bag to Javier, to which Officer Maxwell responded: Id. ¶¶ 24–25. Plaintiff insisted that the officers could not "pin" the bag on Javier given that, according to Plaintiff, the bag was not on the ground prior to Javier's arrest. Id. ¶ 26. In response, Officer Maxwell allegedly "became aggressive," approaching Plaintiff and getting "very close to his face." Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff allegedly told Officer Maxwell "to get away from him," in response to which Officer Maxwell allegedly moved closer to Plaintiff's face and directed: "You're going to stand over there like I told you." Id. ¶¶ 28–29. Plaintiff objected, stating that he was standing on his own property—the front porch of his mother-in-law's home—to which Officer Maxwell responded: Id. ¶¶ 30–31. When Plaintiff asked Officer Maxwell the basis upon which the officer would arrest Plaintiff, Officer Maxwell responded: "For acting improper." Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff responded that he was "not acting improper" but was rather "just recording." Id. ¶ 33.
Officer Maxwell then walked away and told Plaintiff, "You can record all you want." Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff responded that he would take the recording to his "lawyer's office tomorrow" and said to Officer Maxwell, "Fuck you." Id. ¶ 35. Officer Maxwell was allegedly standing 10-to-15 feet away from Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 36. After Plaintiff cursed at Officer Maxwell, Officers Maxwell and Bender allegedly "began sprinting after [Plaintiff]." Id. ¶¶ 36–37.2 Officer Bender knocked Plaintiff to the ground, and Officer Maxwell "punched [Plaintiff] repeatedly." Id. ¶¶ 38–39, 65.
The officers arrested Plaintiff and charged him with three offenses: improper behavior, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(a) ; obstructing the administration of the law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 ; and resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2. See id. ¶ 40. When Plaintiff arrived at the police station, the sergeant in charge of the station allegedly directed the officers to take Plaintiff to the hospital because he was so "heavily bloodied and bruised." Id. ¶ 41. The officers allegedly told Plaintiff that "[t]hings would get much worse for him" if he filed a complaint about their actions. Id. ¶ 42. Plaintiff nevertheless filed a complaint against Officer Maxwell based on his allegedly violent actions against Plaintiff on April 18, 2019. Id. ¶ 43. As of the date Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint—April 15, 2021—he allegedly had not received any update concerning the charges against him since October 2020, and had received no notice of a court date. See id. ¶ 44.
Aside from the events on April 18, 2019, Plaintiff alleges that he has filmed Trenton police officers executing arrests on previous occasions due to his concern about abuse and overreach. Id. ¶ 47. He alleges that certain officers, including Officers Maxwell and Bender, resent that Plaintiff had filmed their encounters, and that officers in the Trenton City Police Department sent an internal memo warning that Plaintiff may film them. Id. ¶ 49. Plaintiff alleges that he learned of the internal memo from Officer Samuel Santiago of the Trenton City Police Department. Id. ¶ 50.
On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court, naming the City of Trenton, Officer Maxwell, Officer Bender, and Officer Christopher Hutton as defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as of right on April 15, 2021, naming as defendants only Officers Maxwell and Bender. ECF No. 5. The Amended Complaint asserts the following causes of action, which Plaintiff brings under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : Count One alleges that Officers Maxwell and Bender unlawfully arrested Plaintiff in retaliation against his exercise of the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; Count Two alleges that Officers Maxwell and Bender violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against Plaintiff for exercising his right to free speech; Count Three alleges that Officers Maxwell and Bender violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting Plaintiff without a warrant supported by probable cause; Count Four alleges that Officers Maxwell and Bender violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force while arresting Plaintiff; and Count Five alleges that Officer Bender unlawfully failed to intervene when Officer Maxwell began punching Plaintiff during the arrest. Plaintiff brought the action against Officers Maxwell and Bender in their individual capacities, seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.
On August 13, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint, ECF No. 20, and on August 18, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Civil Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 22. However, on September 14, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to withdraw the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 27, and on the same day Defendants timely filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26, as well as a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c). Plaintiff filed his Opposition on October 4, 2021, ECF No. 30, and Defendants filed their Reply on October 11, 2021. ECF No. 31.
A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim before or after filing an answer. See Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Delaware Ostego Corp. , 450 F. Supp. 2d 467, 484 (D.N.J. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), (c) ). When moving to dismiss after filing an answer, the defendant must move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hackensack Riverkeeper , 450 F. Supp. 2d at 484 ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), (h)(2).
The standard governing a motion for judgment on the pleadings " ‘based on the defense that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim’ " is the same standard " ‘that appl[ies] to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.’ " See Zimmerman v. Corbett , 873 F.3d 414, 417 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Revell v. Port Auth. of NY, NJ , 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010) ). A court must grant a Rule 12(c) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial