Hohsfield v. Staffieri

1

DAVID HOHSFIELD, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER CRAIG STAFFIERI, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-19295 (FLW)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 9, 2022

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

FREDA L. WOLFSON, U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff David Hohsfield, currently incarcerated at Ocean County Jail has filed an Amended Complaint, alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”) and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint at screening. At this time, the Court screens the Amended Complaint for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court also addresses Plaintiff's request for counsel.

Federal law requires the Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Plaintiff has sued Monroe Township Police Officers Craig Staffieri Nicolas Marchisello, and Michael Gabbianelli (collectively “the Officer Defendants”), Detective Darcangelo the Township of Monroe/the Monroe Township Police Department Walmart, Walmart employee Louis DeMatteo, as well as various John & Jane Does in connection with Plaintiff's arrest at Walmart on September 12, 2020, and his subsequent prosecution. See Amended Complaint at Counts 1-8.

Plaintiff alleges he was shopping at Walmart when Officer Staffieri approached him and told Plaintiff he was being arrested for exposing himself to a minor in the store. Officer Staffieri arrested Plaintiff for lewdness and endangering the welfare of a minor. Officer Staffieri also informed Plaintiff that DeMatteo, the loss prevention employee, had called police and said he observed Plaintiff exposing himself to customers in the store and that Staffieri had also observed the Plaintiff exposing himself on the store's surveillance video. See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested based on a “perjured affidavit” by Staffieri, who falsely claimed that he and Marchisello personally viewed Plaintiff exposing himself on the surveillance video. See id. at ¶¶ 14-15.

Plaintiff was transported to the Monroe Township Police Department and interrogated by Detective Darcangelo, who is allegedly a “Megan's Law” Officer. Darcangelo questioned Plaintiff about his status as Megan's Law offender, which Plaintiff admitted. Darcangelo also showed Plaintiff a still photo of Plaintiff from the Walmart surveillance video, pointed at the crotch area, and asked Plaintiff what he saw in the photograph. Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that the still photo had what appeared to be a penis “penciled in” on the crotch area, and Plaintiff asked Darcangelo to view the actual surveillance video, but Darcangelo did not respond to his request. Id.

In response to Detective Darcangelo's continued questioning, Plaintiff denied exposing himself intentionally or accidentally and told Darcangelo that DeMatteo may have seen Plaintiff put his hand inside his waistband because Plaintiff has a burn on his stomach. Plaintiff also showed the burn to Darcangelo. See id. Plaintiff was then handcuffed to a bench until he was processed, and “defendants” subjected him to “threats and verbal abuse.” Id.

Officer Staffieri transported Plaintiff to Salem County Jail and informed Plaintiff he saw Plaintiff expose himself on the surveillance video, that he was aware of Plaintiff's criminal record, and knew Plaintiff committed the crime. Id. at ¶ 18.

Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that the Walmart video surveillance exculpates him and does not show him exposing himself to anyone; however, at the pretrial hearing, Plaintiff's attorney did not have the allegedly exculpatory surveillance video because the state did not provide it in discovery. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. At the motion hearing to dismiss the indictment, the hearing judge asked why the Walmart video surveillance was not produced at Plaintiff's pretrial release hearing. Id. The hearing judge dismissed the indictment charging Plaintiff with lewdness and endangering the welfare of a child on or about October 12, 2021.^[1]See id; see also Plaintiff's exhibits at 19.

Plaintiff contends that Monroe Township and the Monroe Township Police Department are liable under § 1983 for “aiding and abetting” Plaintiff's prosecution, for the Officer Defendants' arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause, for failing to train the Officer Defendants on proper procedures, and because Staffieri lied on the affidavit of probable cause and stated that he and Officer Marchisello saw Plaintiff exposing himself on the surveillance video. See id. at ¶¶ 14-17.

Plaintiff has sued Officers Staffieri and Marchisello for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. See id. at Count Three. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Marchisello conspired with Staffieri to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff without probable cause. Plaintiff alleges that Marchisello's badge number is listed on the Affidavit of Probable Cause, which states that Staffieri and Marchisello viewed Plaintiff exposing himself on the surveillance video. Id. at ¶ 18.

Plaintiff also alleges that Detective Darcangelo conspired with Staffieri and Marchisello to charge and prosecute Plaintiff maliciously; Plaintiff alleges that Darcangelo was “briefed” by the Officer Defendants prior to questioning Plaintiff and subsequently showed Plaintiff the still photo with the “penciled in” penis. See id. at ¶¶ 19-20.

Plaintiff alleges that Michael Gabbianelli, who supervised the Officer Defendants, was also at Walmart on the date of Plaintiff's arrest and viewed the exculpatory surveillance video. Plaintiff contends that Gabbianelli conspired with the other Officer Defendants to arrest Plaintiff without probable cause and maliciously prosecute Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 21.

Plaintiff also alleges that DeMatteo conspired with the Officer Defendants in a “prearranged plan” by providing false information so they could arrest Plaintiff without probable cause and “initiate” charges against Plaintiff.^[2] See id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiff further alleges that Walmart (the entity) maliciously prosecuted him and failed to follow its own policies for dealing with suspected criminal conduct in their stores. Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff further alleges that DeMatteo and Walmart “pursued prosecution” after speaking to the other Defendants because Plaintiff was a registered sex offender, and that this decision was outrageous and intentional and caused him severe emotional distress. Id.

Plaintiff also attempts to bring claims against unidentified John and Jane Does 1-10 who maliciously prosecuted him.^[3]Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.

The Court begins with Plaintiff's constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a cause of action to redress violations of federal law committed by state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but merely a method for vindicating those rights otherwise protected by federal law. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To establish a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must show a deprivation of a “right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States...by a person acting under color of state law.” Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir.1995)).

Plaintiff asserts false arrest and false imprisonment claims against the Officer Defendants, as well as underlying conspiracy claims against the Officer Defendants and DeMatteo. A false arrest claim arises under the Fourth Amendment and requires plaintiff to show that he or she was arrested without probable cause.^[4] See Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 634 (3d Cir.1995) (citing Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136, 141 (3d Cir.1988)). A claim for false imprisonment may be grounded on a “detention pursuant to [an] arrest” made without probable cause. Groman, 47 F.3d at 636. A civil rights conspiracy requires a “meeting of the minds,” and, to survive screening, a plaintiff must provide some factual basis to support the existence of the elements of a conspiracy, namely, agreement and concerted action.^[5]See Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158 (1970)). Such conspiracies are not limited to persons who act under state law, but also reach private conduct that fits the terms of the statute. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 96-101 (1971). The Court finds that Plaintiff has provided sufficient facts in the Amended Complaint to suggest the Officer Defendants arrested him without probable cause and that they conspired with DeMatteo to accomplish the false arrest. As such, the false arrest and imprisonment claims shall proceed against Staffieri, Marchisello, and Gabbianelli, and the underlying conspiracy claim shall proceed against Staffieri, Marchisello, Gabbianelli and DeMatteo.

Plaintiff also alleges malicious prosecution and underlying conspiracy claims against the Officer Defendants, Darcangelo, DeMatteo and Walmart. The elements of a malicious prosecution claim are as follows: (1) defendant commenced a criminal proceeding; (2) the proceeding terminated in plaintiff's favor; (3) defendant “initiated the proceeding without probable cause;” (4) defendant acted maliciously or with a purpose apart from bringing plaintiff to justice; and (5) plaintiff “suffered deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding. ...