Walker v. City of Newark
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 19-16853 (KM) (ESK) |
| Parties | BRAD WALKER and MARKEITHA WALKER, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEWARK, COUNTY OF ESSEX; DETECTIVE ZYNAH PICKETT, OFFICER CZEZRE ADAMS; DETECTIVE DWAYNE MAYS JR., OFFICER MAURICE MCKELVIN, individually and in their official capacities; JOHN DOES NO. 1 TO X, AND JOHN ROES NO. 1 TO X, individually and in their official capacities, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Now before the Court is the motion of Defendant the City of Newark (DE 9) to dismiss the Complaint (DE 1) filed by Plaintiffs Brad Walker and his spouse, Markeitha Walker. By letter dated June 18, 2020, Detective Zynah Pickett and Officer Maurice McKelvin join the motion to dismiss filed by Newark. (DE 37).1 Plaintiffs have filed papers in opposition. (DE 24) For the reasons stated herein, I will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.
For purposes of this motion to dismiss, I accept as true the allegations in the Complaint.
Plaintiff Brad Walker and his family own and operate the Allure Lounge, located at 417 Halsey Street in Newark, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 2) The Complaint alleges that on June 2, 2018, Mr. Walker was working at the lounge while an individual who he later learned was Detective Pickett of the Newark Police Department was hosting a gathering. (Id. ¶ 3) Other individuals, also later identified as Newark police officers, were in attendance, including Defendants Adams, Mays Jr., and McKelvin. (Id.) At some point, Mr. Walker was told that someone in that group had impermissibly brought liquor purchased elsewhere into the lounge. (Id. ¶ 4) Walker alleges that upon hearing this, he tried to enter the lounge (it is not clear where Walker was coming from). An unidentified individual assaulted him from behind by pushing him. (Id.) Another individual began screaming at him and threatened to harm him. (Id.) Walker did not engage with those individuals and instead kept walking into the lounge. (Id.) Unspecified defendants then got into a verbal altercation with another customer of the lounge. (Id. ¶ 5) Walker, although scared, tried to intervene, at which point he was pushed by another defendant and again physically threatened. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6)
Mr. Walker retreated to his second floor office. (Id. ¶ 6) From there he could see a crowd of customers gathering below him on the street. (Id. ¶ 7) Walker grabbed a legally registered gun and "placed it on his person." (Id. ¶ 8) He returned to the lounge and approached the individual later identified as Defendant Pickett to ask her what was going on. (Id. ¶ 9) Officer Pickettallegedly responded by punching and kicking Walker. (Id.) Walker attempted to back away from Pickett, which caused three or four other defendants to "charge" him. (Id. ¶ 10) Walker then pulled out his gun and fired a single shot into the air. (Id. ¶ 11) Unspecified defendants responded by attempting to shoot Walker, but all of their shots missed. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13) Walker alleges that at no point prior to the start of the shooting did any individual announce that he or she was a Newark police officer. (Id. ¶ 12)
At this point, however, he heard someone yell "Newark Police" which caused him to lie down on the ground and put his weapon down. (Id. ¶ 13) While he was on the ground, Defendants handcuffed him and started kicking him. (Id. ¶ 14) Defendants then pulled Walker off the ground and one of them used a gun to hit Walker above his left eye. (Id.) Mr. Walker began bleeding as the kicking continued. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16) It was only when an employee informed defendants that Walker owned the lounge that they stopped beating him. (Id. ¶ 16) The defendants called the Newark police department and left the scene, leaving Walker handcuffed on the ground. (Id.¶ 18)
When different Newark officers arrived on scene, Mr. Walker was still on the ground, handcuffed and bleeding. (Id. ¶ 19) These officers placed him in a police vehicle, where he remained for 10 hours. (Id. ¶ 21) He witnessed other police officers collecting spent shells—an effort, he says, to cover up the shooting that had occurred earlier. (Id. ¶ 22) Ultimately, Mr. Walker was arrested and placed in jail. (Id. ¶ 23)
On or about June 28, 2018, Newark received a notice of claim from Mr. Walker. (DE 9-1 at 12). In August 2018, the City alerted Mr. Walker to certain deficiencies in his notice (id. at 12-13), and Mr. Walker responded on December 19, 2018. (Id.) Mr. Walker's notice of claim did not indicate that Mrs. Walker, now a plaintiff here, would be asserting a claim against the City. (Id.)
On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, No. ESX-L-3624-18. Defendant Essex County wasserved on August 6, 2019. (DE 1-1 at 2). On August 19, 2019, Essex filed a notice of removal, invoking this Court's original subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Complaint asserts causes of action under federal law. (Id. at 2-3)
The Complaint asserts a number of partially overlapping causes of action:
On October 25, 2019, Newark filed a motion (DE 9) to dismiss certain counts of the Complaint. Then, on November 14, 2019, Essex cross-moved to dismiss (DE 21) the Complaint. On November 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a consent to the dismissal of Essex, which I so-ordered. (DE 25; DE 27)
In December 2019, Officers McKelvin and Pickett were served with the Complaint. (DE 26; DE 29) On June 18, 2020, Counsel for McKelvin and Pickett filed a letter requesting that they be permitted to join in Newark's pending motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13. (DE 37) Having received no objection from Plaintiffs, I will grant that request and consider Newark's arguments, mutatis mutandis, as if asserted on behalf of McKelvin and Pickett.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008) . Thus, the complaint's factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level, so that a claim is "plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also West Run Student Hous. Assocs., LLC v. Huntington Nat. Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 169 (3d Cir. 2013).
That facial-plausibility standard is met "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." Id. Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated. Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462, 469 n.9 (3d Cir. 2011). For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. New Jersey Carpenters & the Trustees Thereof v. Tishman Const. Corp. of New Jersey, 760 F.3d 297, 302 (3d Cir. 2014).
When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court typically does not consider matters outside the pleadings. However, a court may consider documents that are "integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" or any "undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document[.]" In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 184 F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999) (emphasis and citations omitted); see In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 822 F.3d 125, 133 n.7 (3d Cir. 2016); Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). In that regard, courts may consider matters of public record and exhibits attached to the complaint. Schmidt, 770 F.3d at 249 (); Arcand v. Brother Int'l Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 282, 292 (D.N.J. 2009...
To continue reading
Request your trial