Heine v. City of Garfield

ELLEN HEINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GARFIELD, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-2655 (ES) (JAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

February 13, 2019

Not for Publication

OPINION

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court with an extensive history—almost eight years' worth. During that time pro se Plaintiff Ellen Heine ("Plaintiff") has been involved in several related suits and administrative proceedings, both in state and federal court. Indeed, after having filed and litigated more than half-a-dozen cases against New Jersey municipalities and agencies, Plaintiff is no stranger to litigating in federal court or to the showing required to assert a Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

This matter was one of the first cases Plaintiff filed in this District after the events that transpired in late 2010 in the City of Garfield. Now before the Court is Defendant City of Garfield's ("Garfield's") motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"). (D.E. No. 119). The Court has considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the following reasons the Court GRANTS Garfield's motion and dismisses the Complaint with prejudice.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is the owner of the property located at 515 Van Bussum Avenue at Garfield, New Jersey (the "Property"). (D.E. No. 100-3, Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") ¶ 1). Much of the factual background giving rise to the present claims against Garfield has been discussed ad nauseam by the many related lawsuits Plaintiff has filed. See Heine v. Comm'r of Dep't of Cmty. Affairs of New Jersey, 337 F. Supp. 3d 469, 472-75 (D.N.J. 2018) (summarizing the various suits involving the Property); see also Fabics v. City of New Brunswick, No. 13-6025, 2015 WL 5167153, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 3, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Estate of Fabics v. City of New Brunswick & its Agents, 674 F. App'x 206 (3d Cir. 2016); Heine v. City of Garfield, No. 014091-2014, 2017 WL 65237, at *2 (N.J. Tax Ct. Jan. 3, 2017).

Although the Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this matter, the Court details the relevant background below for the benefit of the public.

A. Factual Background

In relevant part, Plaintiff alleges that she, her tenants, and their respective families lived at the Property until September 2010. (TAC ¶¶ 1 & 14). Sometime between September 2 and September 8, 2010, an unknown police officer contacted the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Rooming and Boarding Home Standards, to report that Plaintiff was running an illegal rooming house. (Id. ¶ 48). On or about September 14, 2010, Garfield construction and fire officials, including Gerald Walis, conducted an inspection of the Property. (See id. ¶ 49). These officials accessed the Property with the consent of one of the tenants. (Id. ¶ 51). As a result of the inspection, Walis issued several notices to Plaintiff indicating that the Property was in violation of the Uniform Construction Code ("UCC") and the Uniform Fire Code ("UFC"). (See id. at 28-31).¹ Particularly, Walis issued Notices and Orders of Penalty because additional rooms had been constructed in the attic without permits, violating the UCC. (Id. at 21 & 28-30). Additionally, the inspection uncovered at least eleven violations of the UFC, prompting Walis to issue a Notice of Violations and Order to Correct (the "Imminent Hazard Notice"). (See id. ¶¶ 20 & 53; id. at 31-34). The Imminent Hazard Notice required Plaintiff and her tenants to vacate the Property until Plaintiff completed certain necessary repairs outlined by the notice. (See id. ¶ 20). Plaintiff and her tenants vacated the property shortly thereafter.

The Complaint alleges other entries into the Property. Plaintiff alleges that on September 2, 2010, two unknown police officers entered "the closed stockade fence at the side of the Property and entered the freestanding garage that was within the enclosure and at least sixteen feet from the house." (Id. ¶ 45). These officers removed a gun safe and, apparently, certain "antique guns." (Id. ¶¶ 45 & 46). Plaintiff alleges that only she and two of her tenants, Christopher Grieco and Ethel Hawkins, had keys to the garage. (See id. ¶ 46).

Plaintiff next alleges that in October and November of 2010, agents of Stephen Gilbert² were apparently permitted by Garfield to enter the Property on two occasions. (See id. ¶¶ 54 & 55). Plaintiff also alleges that in April of 2011, an individual from the Bergen County American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("ASPCA") climbed through a window of the Property, despite not having a warrant. (Id. ¶ 61; see also id. at 59). The Complaint does not state how this ASPCA individual is connected to Garfield. (See generally TAC).

Finally, on May 2, 2011, the police department received reports that a person entered the Property and that animals were being stored at the Property. (Id. at 21 & 39). The police report states that upon entering the Property, the officers discovered that a woman identified as Justyna Gaszczyk was inside. (Id. at 39). The officers observed that the building was populated by approximately 20 cats and a pitbull, which were malnourished and in very poor health. (Id. at 39-40). Gaszczyk told the officers that her friend, Plaintiff, had asked her to take care of the animals. (See id. ¶ 63; id. at 40).

The report notes that "every room was occupied by at least two to three cats" and the "floors were covered in feces." (Id. at 40). As a result of the animals' feces and urine, a strong odor permeated the building. (See id.). Upon seeing this, the officers notified Garfield's fire, building, and health inspectors. (Id.). The officers also notified Bergen County animal control to remove the animals. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that these Garfield "agents" entered the building without her consent, removed the animals, and boarded-up the Property. (Id. ¶¶ 64-65); see also Heine, No. 14091-2014, 2017 WL 65237, at *2 & n.4 (noting that the Property was boarded up because it was deemed unsafe and because there was "evidence that individuals were accessing the subject property and bringing animals onto the property," up to 54 cats at one point).

Plaintiff alleges that since she was forced to vacate the Property, she and her agents have not been allowed to enter the building. (TAC ¶¶ 23, 30-31 & 66). She makes references to police records dated September 4, 2011, January 27, 2012, and January 29, 2012, which indicate that police officers prevented her from entering the Property. (Id. ¶¶ 31-33 & 66). Plaintiff also alleges that she has been charged excessive property taxes, even though she has been unable to use the Property since she vacated it in September of 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 73 & 124-129).

Plaintiff's Complaint also points the Court to Garfield Ordinance 1723, § 181-3 ("§ 181-3"). (Id. ¶ 16). § 181-3 "requires that residents allow inspectors to enter their home at all reasonable times" and permits Garfield to issue criminal summons on property owners who refuse the grant entry to an inspector. (See id. ¶¶ 16 & 18). Plaintiff alleges that between 2009 and 2010 Garfield issued summonses to Plaintiff on four separate dates for failure to allow an inspection. (Id. ¶ 18). Plaintiff was tried and found guilty in Garfield Municipal Court, but she appealed the decision. (Id.). On January 31, 2012, a New Jersey appellate court issued a published opinion which specifically found that § 181-3 violated the Fourth Amendment. (Id. ¶ 34); see State v. Heine, 35 A.3d 691, 701 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2012). The decision overturned two of the summonses against Plaintiff for failure to permit the inspection. Heine, 35 A.3d at 701. But the decision upheld other ordinances and related civil fines imposed on Plaintiff for failing to maintain sidewalks free from dangerous conditions and for failing to maintain windows and the exterior surface of her Property in good condition. Id. at 702.

Plaintiff alleges that despite the state court's decision, Garfield continued to dispute the validity of § 181-3 by appealing. (TAC ¶¶ 78, 89 & 94). Further, she notes that even when Garfield amended § 181-3, it still failed to comply with the Fourth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 81 & 90-91). This prompted Plaintiff to file another action in Superior Court, during which the judge "suggested" a change in the language of the ordinance, which Garfield implemented. (Id. ¶¶ 81 & 91-92). Plaintiff asserts that these actions demonstrate Garfield's indifference to the Fourth Amendment and show Garfield had an unlawful policy and custom. (See id. ¶¶ 17, 18, 95 & 117).

Plaintiff does not allege any other Garfield policy or custom, relying only on § 181-3 as the basis of her Monell claims. (See generally id.; D.E. No. 125 at 2). Moreover, aside from alleging that between 2009 and 2010 she received four summonses for, and she was found guilty of, violating § 181-3 (see TAC ¶ 18), Plaintiff does not provide any other factual allegations tosupport those incidents. Rather, Plaintiff's alleged injuries and factual allegations are all focused on the events that occurred beginning in September 2010. (See generally id.).

B. Procedural History

This action was originally filed on May 6, 2011. (See D.E. No. 1). Plaintiff subsequently amended her pleadings one week later (D.E. No. 2), and then filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 24, 2012, without leave of Court. (D.E. No. 11). On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her pleading to add her tenants as plaintiffs, as well as to add several Garfield officials as defendants. (See D.E. Nos. 19 & 20). The Court denied this request, particularly noting that Plaintiff could not represent her former tenants. (D.E. No. 26). Shortly...