Roman v. City of Newark, Civil Action No: 16-1110-SDW-LDW

• Decision Date: 30 January 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No: 16-1110-SDW-LDW
• Parties: ADRIANO ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, ET AL., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

ADRIANO ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, ET AL., Defendants.

Civil Action No: 16-1110-SDW-LDW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

January 30, 2017

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

WIGENTON, District Judge.

Before this Court is Defendant City of Newark, City of Newark Police Department, Chief of Police Anthony Campos, Roger Mendes, Albano Ferreira, Onofre Cabezas, Joseph Cueto, Miguel Ressurreicao, William Golpe, and Joyce Hill's¹ (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Adriano Roman's ("Plaintiff") Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367(a). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This opinion is issued without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a resident of Newark, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Defendant City of Newark ("City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of New Jersey², and Defendant Anthony Campos ("Campos") was the Chief of Police for the City when the events at issue occurred ("Newark Entities"). (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) Defendants Mendes, Ferreira, Cabezas, Cueto, Ressurreicao, Golpe and Hill (collectively, "Newark Officers") were police officers for the City during the time in question. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-14.)

On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that Newark Officers "and others" arrested Plaintiff at an apartment in Newark (the "Residence") and searched the premises. (Compl. ¶ 21.) The officers present were not in uniform and did not have a warrant to arrest Plaintiff or to conduct the search. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-27, 41.) During the arrest, Plaintiff was thrown against a wall and was charged "with possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession with intent to distribute same." (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 32.) Plaintiff was then transported to Essex County Jail where he was held until December 2014. (Compl. ¶ 38.) The Complaint does not identify which officers were allegedly responsible for which actions, only that "the acts alleged above were committed either on the instruction of . . . by . . . or with the knowledge and consent of . . . or were thereafter approved and ratified by" the Newark Officers or "their supervising Officers and Police Chief."(Compl. ¶ 44.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Newark Officers made false statements in police reports and gave false testimony before a grand jury and at a suppression hearing. (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 78-81, 129.) The search of the Residence was later found to have been conducted without probable cause and the evidence gathered during the search was suppressed. (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46.) On December 18, 2014, the criminal complaint against Plaintiff was dismissed. (Id.)

On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a seventeen-count Complaint in this Court, alleging that Defendants acted under color of law to deprive him of his federal and state constitutional, statutory, and common law rights. Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on September 12, 2016. Plaintiff filed his timely opposition October 18, 2016 and Defendants filed their reply on October 21, 2016.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

An adequate complaint must be "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). This Rule "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted); see also Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating that Rule 8 "requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of an entitlement to relief").

In considering a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must "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, 515 F.3d at 231 (external citation omitted). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Determining whether the allegations in a complaint are "plausible" 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. If the "well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct," the complaint should be dismissed for failing to "show[] that the pleader is entitled to relief" as required by Rule 8(a)(2). Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Although Plaintiff's Complaint lacks clarity, at its core, it alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully searched, arrested, detained, and prosecuted in violation of his constitutional rights under both the United States and New Jersey constitutions and federal and state law. This Court construes Plaintiff's Complaint to contain the following claims:³

A. Section 1983 Claims

42 U.S.C. §1983 provides in relevant part:

[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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[.]

Section 1983 does not itself, create any rights, it merely provides "private citizens with a means to redress violations of federal law committed by state [actors]." Woodyard v. Cty. of Essex, 514 Fed. App'x 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979); Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906-07 (3d Cir.1997); O'Toole v. Klingen, No. Civ. 14-6333, 2017 WL 132840, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2017); Thomas v. E. Orange Bd. of Educ., 998 F. Supp. 2d 338, 350 (D.N.J. 2014). Similarly, "civil claims for violations of the New Jersey Constitution can only be asserted by way of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ['NJCRA']." Martin v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, 965 F. Supp. 2d 502, 548 (D.N.J. 2013). Because the NJCRA is "interpreted analogously to Section 1983," Plaintiff's state constitutional claims will also be analyzed under Section 1983. O'Toole, No. Civ. 14-6333, 2017 WL 132840, at *5; see also Trafton v. City of Woodbury, 799 F. Supp. 2d 417, 443 (D.N.J. 2011) (noting that the NJCRA "was modeled after [] § 1983").

To bring a Section 1983 claim, "a [] plaintiff [must] prove two essential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313, 319 (3d Cir. 2011); Hilton v. Whitman, No. Civ. 04-6420 (SDW), 2008 WL 5272190, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2008) (noting that the plaintiff must "identify the exact contours of the underlying right said to have been violated."). For a municipality to be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior, the constitutional harm alleged must be caused by a municipal policy or custom. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.⁴ (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 58, 153.) The Fourth Amendment, which protects persons from "unreasonable searches and seizures" prohibits false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and the use of excessive force. U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007) (noting that a claim for false arrest is subsumed by a claim for false imprisonment); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the enactment or enforcement of laws which "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (explaining that selective enforcement of the law based on race is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

a. Improper Training and Supervision (Counts One and Seventeen)⁵

Plaintiff first alleges that the Newark Entities violated his constitutional rights by failing to properly train and/or supervise the individual officers in the areas of "law enforcement," "therequirements of obtaining a search warrant and/or arrest warrant," and "in the administration of their duties." (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 61, 63.) In order to hold a municipality liable under Section 1983, the constitutional harm alleged must be caused by a municipal policy or custom and the municipality must not have "change[d] the policy or employ[ed] corrective practices." Argueta v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 643 F.3d 60, 72 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Chavarriaga v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 806 F.3d 210, 223 (3d Cir. 2015); Mattern v. City of Sea Isle, 131 F. Supp. 3d 305, 318 (D.N.J. 2015). Here, Plaintiff fails to plead that such a custom or policy exists. Plaintiff alleges only that a prior investigation by the Justice Department and the United States Attorney's Office revealed that the Newark Police Department had engaged in a ...