Saint-Jean v. Cnty. of Bergen, Civ. No. 19-10680 (ES) (MAH)

• Decision Date: 28 December 2020
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 19-10680 (ES) (MAH)
• Parties: Fernando SAINT-JEAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BERGEN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

509 F.Supp.3d 87

Fernando SAINT-JEAN, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF BERGEN, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 19-10680 (ES) (MAH)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed December 28, 2020

Christopher Arzberger, The Russell Friedman Law Group LLP, Garden City, NY, Russell Charles Friedman, The Russell Friedman Law Group, LLP, Lake Success, NY, for Plaintiff.

Bryan Edward Lucas, State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants.

McNulty, District Judge

Before the Court is a motion (DE 29) to dismiss the complaint filed by defendants Palisades Interstate Park Commission ("PIPC"), Palisades Interstate Parkway Police Department ("PIPPD"); Andrew Samson ("Prosecutor Samson"); and four police officers, Michael Holland, Fabricio M. Salazar, Peter Wojckik, and Richard Dey (the "Officer Defendants"). The matter has been reassigned from Judge Salas to me for purposes of deciding this motion. Having considered the relevant submissions, I decide the motion without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) ; L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to defendants PIPC, PIPPD, and Prosecutor Samson. As to the Officer Defendants, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.¹

The plaintiff, who was arrested, handcuffed, and detained for a period of hours, does not seem to have been guilty of anything at all. The police made a mistake here, as officers going about the difficult business of law enforcement inevitably will. On the facts as alleged in the complaint, they erred inexcusably; on the facts that the police seemingly plan to adduce at the proper time, they did so excusably. Accepting, as I must, the truth of the facts as alleged in the complaint, I must withhold a finding of qualified immunity and deny in part the motion to dismiss as to the Officer Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND²

The plaintiff, Fernando Saint-Jean, identifies himself as a black male of Haitian descent, a U.S. citizen, and a resident of Massachusetts, facts relevant to certain of his claims. (Complaint ¶ 17).

On May 6, 2018, defendant Officer Holland pulled Mr. Saint-Jean over while he was driving back to Massachusetts after visiting relatives in New Jersey. (Id. ¶¶ 19–24). Officer Holland allegedly requested identification from both Mr. Saint-Jean and his passenger, his uncle. (Id. ¶¶ 20 & 24). Officer Holland asked the men what country they were from; they responded that they were from Haiti but were United States citizens and residents of Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 25). Officer Holland informed Mr. Saint-Jean that he was pulled over for driving too slowly and for having tinted windows, allegedly in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:3-75.1. (Id. ¶ 26).

During this exchange, defendant Officer Salazar pulled up alongside Officer Holland. (Id. 28). Officers Holland and Salazar then instructed Mr. Saint-Jean and his uncle to step out of the vehicle. (Id. ¶ 29). Holland brought Saint-Jean behind his police vehicle and conducted a pat-down search. (Id. ¶ 30). During the pat-down of Saint-Jean, a third officer, defendant Officer Wojckik, arrived on the scene to aid in the investigation of Saint-Jean and his uncle. (Id. ¶ 31).

Mr. Saint-Jean alleges that he inquired as to why an investigation of tinted windows required three police vehicles, but he received no answer. (Id. ¶¶ 32 & 33). By this point, Saint-Jean says, he "was mentally distressed and visibly shaking because he was nervous and stressed about being pulled over, being asked to get out of the vehicle, and being patted down ...." (Id. ¶ 32).

Officers Holland, Salazar, and Wojckik then requested consent to search Mr. Saint-Jean's car, and Saint-Jean signed a consent-to-search form.³ (Id. ¶¶ 33–34). During a search of the console storage compartment between the driver's and passenger's seats, the officers discovered "zip lock bags containing Valentine's Day sugar candies that Saint-Jean had received from his co-worker." (Id. ¶ 36). The officers then questioned Saint-Jean as to the contents of the bags. (Id. ¶¶ 37–38). Saint-Jean responded that they were Valentine's Day candies and offered to provide the officers with the telephone number of the co-worker so that she could confirm the contents. (Id. ¶ 38). The officers declined Saint-Jean's offer, and instead arrested Saint-Jean for possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-10a(1), and for the motor vehicle violation of having tinted windows, supposedly in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:3-75.1. (Id. ).

Mr. Saint-Jean was taken to the police station, where he was handcuffed to a bench and interviewed by Officer Salazar. (Id. ¶ 44). He was fingerprinted, photographed, and charged with possession of MDMA/Ecstasy⁴ and issued a traffic summons for improperly tinted windows. (Id. ¶ 45). The officers allegedly reassured Saint-Jean that the charge would be dismissed if he stayed out of trouble for six months. (Id. ¶ 46). Saint-Jean was released at approximately 3:50 p.m., without being required to post bail. He was given a criminal complaint summons to appear at the Bergen County Superior Court on May 22, 2018. (Id. ¶ 47).

On May 16, 2018, Mr. Saint-Jean's charge was downgraded to use or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:36-2. (Id. ¶ 58). Then, on July 27, 2018, the New Jersey State Police Office of Forensic Sciences completed a chemical analysis of the candies that were found in Saint-Jean's vehicle. The result was that there was "no controlled dangerous substance detected." (Id. ¶ 59). Saint-Jean received that lab report on August 17, 2018, and immediately requested that Municipal Prosecutor Samson, defendant here, dismiss the charge. (Id. ¶ 60).

The prosecution of Mr. Saint-Jean nevertheless continued for several months after the drug analysis report confirmed that the candies were not drugs. (Id. ¶¶ 61 & 63). Saint-Jean was required to appear in court approximately two or three more times thereafter. (Id. ¶ 65). On or about November 14, 2018, all charges were dismissed. (Id. ¶ 66–67).⁵

Based on this set of facts, Mr. Saint-Jean brings federal claims against all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest (Count I); malicious prosecution (Count II); failure to supervise (Count III); violation of substantive due process (Count V); and violation of procedural due process (Count VI). Against PIPC only, Saint-Jean asserts a § 1983 Monell municipal-liability claim. (Count IV). Saint-Jean also brings pendent state law claims against all Defendants for false imprisonment (Count VII) and malicious abuse of process/malicious prosecution (Count VIII).⁶

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They assert, inter alia , sovereign immunity as to PIPC and PIPPD, prosecutorial immunity as to Prosecutor Samson, and qualified immunity as to the Officer Defendants.

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard

Because "[t]he Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar which deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction," Defendants’ motion is, in part, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 693 n.2 (3d Cir. 1996).

Typically, once a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge is raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust , 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006). "However, because ‘Eleventh Amendment immunity can be expressly waived by a party, or forfeited through non-assertion, it does not implicate federal subject matter jurisdiction in the ordinary sense,’ and therefore, a party asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity bears the burden of proving its applicability." Garcia v. Knapp , No. 19-17946, 2020 WL 2786930, at *3 (D.N.J. May 29, 2020) (quoting Christy v. PA Tpk. Comm. , 54 F.3d 1140, 1144 (3d Cir. 1995) ).

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, "a court must first determine whether the party presents a facial or factual attack because the distinction determines how the pleading is reviewed." Leadbeater v. JPMorgan Chase, N.A. , No. 16-7655, 2017 WL 4790384, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2017). "When a party moves to dismiss prior to answering the complaint ... the motion is generally considered a facial attack." Id. ; see also Garcia , 2020 WL 2786930, at *4 ("Defendants, by asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity, raise a facial 12(b)(1) challenge."). In reviewing a facial attack, the Court should consider only the allegations in the complaint, along with documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele , 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014).

Thus, a facial motion is handled much like a 12(b)(6) motion, and allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. Leadbeater , 2017 WL 4790384, at *3.

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

To withstand a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "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." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.

"When reviewing a motion to dismiss, all allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be given the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom." Malleus v....