Randle v. Pennsauken

• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-1073 (KMW-AMD)
• Decision Date: 08 September 2023
• Citation: Randle v. Pennsauken, Civil Action 21-1073 (KMW-AMD) (D. N.J. Sep 08, 2023)
• Parties: TANISHA RANDLE, Individually and as Administrator Ad Prosequendum of Decedent, Michael Thomas, et al, Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

1

TANISHA RANDLE, Individually and as Administrator Ad Prosequendum of Decedent, Michael Thomas, et al, Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-1073 (KMW-AMD)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

September 8, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Nixon Teah Kamiah, Esquire Counsel for Tanisha Randle, Individually and as Administrator Ad Prosequendum of Decedent, Michael Thomas, and Estate of Mount Laurel, Michael Thomas Jr

J Brooks DiDonato, Esquire Parker, McCay Counsel for Township of Pennsauken, Township of Pennsauken Police Department, John Nettleton, and Timothy Mireles

Andrew S. Brown, Esquire William F. Cook, Esquire William M Tambussi, Esquire Counsel for County of Camden, Scott Thomson ^[1] and Camden County Police Department

OPINION

KAREN M. WILLILMS U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of the discovery of the body of Plaintiff Tanisha Randle's^[2] son, Michael Thomas (“Thomas”), in a river dam. On January 22, 2019, Defendant Timothy Mireles (“Mireles”), a police officer from the Pennsauken Police Department, initiated a police pursuit of Thomas after observing Thomas driving his vehicle at a high rate of speed, failing to yield to a stop sign, and disregarded Mireles' emergency alerts for Thomas to pull over. When Thomas crashed his vehicle and ignored Mireles' commands to stop fleeing, he ran into a wooded area near a river embankment. Police officers searched the area where Thomas was last seen but were not successful in locating him. Approximately four months later, Thomas' body was found.

Randle, individually and as administrator ad prosequendum of Thomas, and the Estate of Michael Thomas Jr (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) bring this action alleging claims premised on failure to supervise and/or train under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Camden; Camden County Police Department; Scott Thomson, former Chief of Camden Police, in his individual and official capacity (collectively, the “Camden Defendants”) and the Township of Pennsauken; Township of Pennsauken Police Department; John Nettleton, Chief of Pennsauken Police, in his individual and official capacity; and Timothy Mireles, in his individual and official capacity (collectively, the “Pennsauken Defendants”). Presently before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Camden Defendants and the Pennsauken Defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.^[3] Plaintiffs have not opposed the Motions. For the reasons that follow, the Motions filed by Defendants are granted.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts giving rise to this lawsuit are fairly straight forward. In the early morning hours of January 22, 2019, Mireles was on patrol in the area of Marlton Pike and Woodland Avenue in Pennsauken when he observed a 2002 silver Buick sedan driven by who was later identified as Thomas. See Camden Defs.' Statement of Material Facts (“Camden Defs.' SMF”) ¶ 1; Pennsauken Defs.' Statement of Material Facts (“Pennsauken Defs.' SMF”) ¶¶ 1, 3. According to Mireles, Thomas was driving the vehicle at a high rate of speed, nearly colliding with several parked cars, and failed to yield at a stop sign. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 2-3; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶ 2. Mireles attempted to stop the vehicle by activating his emergency lights and siren to alert Thomas to pull over. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 3-4; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 3-4.

Thomas failed to yield to Mireles' siren and instead accelerated thereby prompting Mireles to notify central dispatch that the vehicle was attempting to flee from police. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 5; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 5-6. Thereafter, Mireles began his pursuit of the vehicle. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 5; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶ 6. Thomas lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a concrete traffic barrier on Route 30 just outside of Camden. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 7; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶ 8. As Thomas exited the vehicle, Mireles commanded him to stop and advised him that he was under arrest. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 8; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 9-10. Thomas ignored Mireles' commands, jumped the concrete barrier, and ran into a wooded area parallel to the 11th Street Bridge in Camden, Camden Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 8-9; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 10-12; Camden Defs.' Br. at Ex. D. Mireles chased Thomas through the woods but lost sight of him near a river embankment, Camden Defs,' SMF ¶¶ 9-10; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 12-13, Although Mireles lost sight of Thomas, he nevertheless requested assistance and at least ten police officers from Camden Police and Pennsauken Police performed a perimeter search of the area where Mireles last saw Thomas. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 11-12; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 13-14; Camden Defs' Br. at Ex. G; Pennsauken Defs' Br. at Ex. L. The officers were unable to locate Thomas^[4] and it was determined that he had eluded arrest. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 13; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶ 14. The vehicle Thomas was driving was later identified as that of Thomas' girlfriend, who had shared in an interview with police that Thomas borrowed her car, Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 14; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF¶ 15. Two days later, on January 24, 2019, Randle met with an officer of Camden Police and advised him she wished to report Thomas missing; although she changed her mind about filing a missing persons report, Camden Police updated their website to list Thomas as a missing person. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 18-19; Camden Defs' Br. at Ex. F.

Sadly, on May 14, 2019, almost four months after the pursuit and search, Thomas' body was found with an ankle monitor on a fish ladder in the Cooper River dam.^[5] Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 20; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 18-20. The State of New Jersey's Pretrial Probation Office determined that the battery in the ankle bracelet had last been changed at approximately 1:00 a.m. on January 22,2019, and at 3:00 a.m. there was a loss of signal likely representing a loss of power to the unit. Pennsauken Defs,' SMF ¶ 21; Pennsauken Defs.' Br. at Ex. J. The Gloucester County Medical Examiner performed an autopsy on Thomas' body and opined that Thomas' death was accidental and that he died of methamphetamine and buprenorphine intoxication. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 21-23; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶ 21; Pennsauken Defs.' Br. at Ex. F.

On January 22, 2021, Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants. The Camden Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law tort claims under Counts One, Three, and Four of the Complaint or in the alternative for summary judgment. ECF No. 20. The Pennsauken Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the same state law tort claims. ECF No. 24. In a May 25, 2022 Order, the Court granted the dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law tort claims with prejudice on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of claim under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. ECF No. 49. Following entry of that Order, Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. Thus, the only remaining claim against Defendants is premised on failure to supervise and/or train under 42 U.S.C, § 1983.

On February 24, 2022, Randle was deposed and testified that she did not know how or when Thomas entered the water, what caused his death, or whether Thomas ended up in the water that morning when he was pursued by police. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 25; Pennsauken Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 29-32. When asked what officers from Camden Police and Pennsauken Police did wrong, Randle testified that they should have searched the water for Thomas and knocked on the doors of family to locate him. Camden Defs.' SMF ¶ 27; Camden Defs,' Br, at Ex. F; Pennsauken Defs.' Br. at Ex. K.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Where, as here, a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(3) “still requires the Court to satisfy itself that summary judgment is proper because there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ruth v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., No, 15-2616, 2017 WL 592146, at *2 (D.NJ. Feb. 14, 2017); see also Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 1990) (failure to respond to a summary judgment motion “is not alone a sufficient basis for the entry of a summary judgment”). A dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable rule of law. Id.

In considering a summary judgment motion, the district court “may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence.” Montone v. City of Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181, 191 (3d Cir. 2013). The moving party has the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion and must demonstrate that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). While the nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of all justifiable inferences from the evidence, it “may not, in the face of a showing of a lack of a genuine issue, withstand summary judgment by resting on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings.” U.S. v. Premises Known as 717 S. Woodward St., Allentown, Pa., 2 F.3d 529, 533 (3d Cir. 1993), The nonmoving party “must set forth ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,' else summary judgment, ‘if appropriate,' will be entered.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). Ultimately, there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” if a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

For an unopposed motion, a movant who...