LOPEZ v. EATON, No. 1:2017cv01912 - Document 18 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/21/2017. (tf, n.m.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LOPEZ v. EATON Doc. 18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MICHAEL T. LOPEZ, Civ. No. 17—1912(RMB) (AMD) Plaintiff, OPINION BRAD EATON, Defendant. APPEARANCES: MICHAEL T. LOPEZ Jones Farm Correctional Facility P.O. Box 7100 Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Plaintiff, pro se Kevin B. Golden, Esq. Shimberg & Friel, P.C. 20 Brace Road, Room 350 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 On behalf of Defendant Brad Eaton BUMB, District Judge Plaintiff Michael Jones Farm Correctional on March Court No. T. 23, upon 12) . 2017. the Lopez, Facility, (ECF No. motion to inmate presently confined an filed this 1.) dismiss civil This matter by For the following reasons, Defendant is rights in action now before the Eaton. (ECF Brad the motion to dismiss will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. 1 Dockets.Justia.com I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On or about March 23, this 2017, Plaintiff Michael T. civil action asserting claims pursuant to 42 (BCE No. 1) In an order dated April 27, . Plaintiff’s request Plaintiff’s excessive proceed. (BCE No. filed on May 30, (BCE Nos. 4, 7) force September claim, under § 2017, 3, 42 for 2017, Defendant filed 1983. this Court granted and U.S.C. Pro permitted 1983 § Bono to Counsel was denied in an order dated June 1, (BCE No. 20, U.S.C. forma pauperis Plaintiff’s Motion On August . in proceed 2). 2017, Motion to Dismiss. On to 2017, Lopez, filed the 2017. instant 12) an Order to Show Cause was issued ordering Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the action pursuant to Local Civil Rule 10.1 should not be granted. (BCE Nos. to the move to 12-14) Order to On October 16, . Show Cause. forward with this the motion to court that he was Plaintiff filed a Response Plaintiff case, dismiss. 2017, stated that but he did not Furthermore, he wanted to specifically respond Plaintiff informed relocated to a different correctional the facility and did not submit his updated address because of his unawareness of Local Civil Rule 10.1. (BCE No. 2 16). 3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In his complaint, accepted as Plaintiff alleged the following facts, true for the purpose of ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6).’ On November 11, by Officer 2015, around 11:00 p.m., Brad Eaton of the South Broadway and Chestnut Nos. 1—2) During . the Camden County Streets course of II. their Department New Jersey. encounter, on (ECF Officer Eaton right temple area and right (Id.) ARGUMENTS The Defendant Motion to facts Police in Camden, caused abrasions to Plaintiff’s back, elbow. Plaintiff was approached in proffers Dismiss: support conclusions; (2) (1) of three Plaintiff’s the claims Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his complaint does not allege any but rather complaint does only not requisite elements of a claim under Section 1983; contains meet (3) legal any of the Defendant is immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine. III. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), courts may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff, however, need only present a “short The Court must accept all plausibly alleged facts in a complaint See, as true when ruling on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss. e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 682—83 (legal conclusions must be ignored before Court identifies plausibly alleged facts) ‘ 3 and plain statement of entitled to relief.” the defendant fair the Fed. claim R. notice Civ. of 544, (3d Cir. 555 2017) (2007) P. what grounds upon which it rests.’” 219 showing 8. that the . . claim . Palakovic v. Wetzel, (quoting Conley v. is A complaint must “‘give the (quoting Bell Atl. pleader Corp. Gibson, v. is and 854 F.3d 209, Twombly, 355 U.S. the 41, 550 U.s. 47 (1957)) (alteration in original) To survive a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss, must contain sufficient factual matter, a claim to relief that Ashcroft v. Iqbal, quotation marks sufficient facts that the When assessing dismiss omitted) ) elements a 662, 678 (2009) face.’” (quoting (citation and internal A claim is plausible . is the Rule liable for sufficiency 12(b) (6), plaintiff must the misconduct of a complaint courts plead to should state if it alleged.’” on a motion determine first claim, a 220 (3d (quoting Burtch v. Cir. Santiago Third, 2011) v. (internal Warminster courts Milberg Twp., Factors, and Palakovic, quotation 629 F.3d Inc., marks 121, 662 130 Id. to the second, which are 854 F.3d omitted) should assume well-pleaded factual 4 contains inference identify allegations that are no more than conclusions, not entitled to the assumption of truth. to state Id. for “the court to draw the reasonable defendant under accepted as true, is plausible on its 556 U.S. “‘a complaint (3d Cir. F.3d at 212, 221 (quoting 2010)). allegations are true and “then determine whether entitlement for relief.” IV. they plausibly give to an Id. ANALYSIS Plaintiff sued Officer Eaton, for events Defendant that occurred argues that on a Camden County police officer, November Plaintiff 11, failed elements of a claim under Section 1983. making a claim elements: of rise a (1) right States, See West and v. under 1983 to meet (ECF No. 12) must (ECF meet the the No. 1) requisite A plaintiff . following two a person deprived him or caused him to be deprived secured (2) by the Constitution or laws of the United the deprivation was done under color of state law. Atkins, exists under § Section 2015. 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) “A cause of action . 1983 when a law enforcement officer uses force so excessive that it violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Groman v. 47 F.3d 628, Chambersburg, 634 (3d Cir. 903 F.2d 274, 1995) 277 Township of Manalapan, (quoting (3d Cir. Brown v. Borough 1990) The Court construes this claim as a due process claim for use of excessive force during the course of an arrest. Such a claim is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). A Fourth Amendment excessive force claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a ‘seizure’ 5 occurred and that it of was unreasonable. 1999) Abraham v. (quoting Brower v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 489 U.S. County of Inyo, 288 (3d Cir. 593, 599 (1989)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support whether an actual seizure occurred. However, an exhibit that Plaintiff attached to the complaint, containing several photographs taken by the Camden County Police Department depicting Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, arrested. Consol. (ECf Nos. Indus., 1-2) Inc., See Pension Ben. . 998 suggests that he was F.2d 1192, decide a motion to dismiss, 1196 (3d Cir. Corp. 1993) v. White (“[tb courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record.”) Next, Guar. (citations omitted) the Court addresses whether Plaintiff’s complaint alleges sufficient facts for an appropriate reasonableness Determining reasonableness under the Fourth analysis to occur. Amendment “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, the crime at issue, including the severity of whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. The Court may also consider factors such as “the possibility that the persons subject to the 6 police action are violent or dangerous, action, whether the action takes place in the context of effecting an arrest, armed, the possibility that the suspect may be and the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time.” Cir. the duration of the 2004) . Moreover, Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 777 (3d the reasonableness inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one. Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide any information for such a fact—specific inquiry to be conducted. Other than Plaintiff’s cursory reference to abrasions caused by the Defendant, he does not provide any other information about how these abrasions came to be, excessive force, what actions, if any, constituted or even what the interaction between Plaintiff and Defendant entailed. Because the Court will dismiss the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Eaton at this time, this Court need not analyze Eaton’s qualified immunity argument. to state a claim, Furthermore, in light of Plaintiff’s failure Eaton’s alternative request for a more definite statement need not be analyzed as well. 7 V. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed Defendant’s motion to dismiss. prejudice. above, the Court grants the The complaint is dismissed without Plaintiff shall have thirty days in which to submit an amended complaint that connects the deficiencies of the complaint as stated in this opinion. dismissal with prejudice. Failure to do so will result in An appropriate Order follows. s/Renée Narie Dumb RENEE MARIE DUMB United States District Judge Dated: December 21, 2017 8 a
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
