Ianuale v. Borough of Keyport

ROBERT J. IANUALE and PHILIP J. IANUALE, Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF KEYPORT, KEYPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF OF POLICE GEORGE CASALETTO,in his personal, individual, and official capacities, SERGEANT MICHAEL A. FERM, in his personal, individual, andofficial capacities, PATROLMAN KEVIN BENNETT, in his personal, individual, and official capacities,PATROLMAN GREGORY JOHNSON, in his personal, individual, and official capacities, JOHN DOE KEYPORTPOLICE OFFICERS 1-25 {fictitious employees of the Keyport Police Department}, in their personal, individual, and official capacities, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-9147 (FLW)(LHG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

October 16, 2018

*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*

OPINION

WOLFSON, United States District Judge:

Pending before the Court are two separate motions for summary judgment filed by 1) the Borough of Keyport, Keyport Police Department, and Keyport Chief of Police George Casaletto, ("Keyport Defendants"); and 2) Sergeant Michael A. Ferm, Patrolman Kevin Bennett, and Patrolman Gregory Johnson ("Officer Defendants" or "the officers") (collectively "Defendants"). The present dispute stems from an alleged false arrest and use of excessive force by Officer Defendants. Plaintiffs Robert Ianuale ("Robert") and Philip Ianuale ("Philip") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), who are proceeding pro se, bring seventeen claims seeking punitive and compensatory damages for alleged violations of constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and for various violations of New Jersey state law. Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and good faith immunity, under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. Keyport Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs fail to prove a claim for Monell liability against them.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted, and all claims against Defendants are dismissed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs are brothers who reside in Hazlett, New Jersey. Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts ("PSMF") at ¶¶ 1-2. The incident that forms the basis of Plaintiffs' Complaint took place at a commercial property that Robert leased at 52 Broad Street in Keyport, New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 3. On December 13, 2014, at around 4:50 am, Officers Ferm, Bennett and Johnson responded to a phone call that Robert placed to the Keyport Police Department. Defendants' Statement of Material Facts ("DSMF") at ¶¶ 14--15. Although the Police Department's Call for Service Details Report indicates that the call involved a "domestic in progress at 52 Broad Street, Flr 3," and that a "male caller reported a fight involving his brother," id. at ¶ 16, Plaintiffs contend that Robert called the police department's non-emergency number for assistance in mediating a non-violent dispute between the brothers. PSMF at ¶ 9.

When the officers arrived at the property before dawn, they were greeted at the door of by a female, identified as Shauna Alvarez. PSMF at ¶ 11; DSMF at ¶ 17. Plaintiffs' and Defendants' accounts of what happened next differ. According to Plaintiffs, Officer Defendants pushed past Alvarez, walked up three flights of stairs, and entered the third-floor office, wherethe Plaintiffs were located. PSMF at ¶ 13. Plaintiffs contend that they immediately conveyed to the officers that all was in order, the officers' assistance was no longer needed, and that they should leave the premises. Id. at ¶ 14. They insist that they told the officers that there had been no fight. Id. at ¶ 17.

Officer Defendants, on the other hand, contend that, once Alvarez answered the door, she told the officers that the brothers were "out of control" and willingly led them upstairs to the apartment. DSMF at ¶ 17; Certification of Charles J. Uliano, Esq. ("Uliano Cert."), Exs. C, D. In addition, the officers heard "yelling and screaming" coming from Plaintiffs' apartment. Uliano Cert., Exs. C, D. Upon entering the apartment, Officer Defendants immediately noticed signs that a physical altercation had taken place, including broken vodka bottles on the floor, and noticed signs of physical injury on both men. DSMF at ¶¶ 18-19; Uliano Cert., Exs. C, D. As such, the officers determined that both men should be placed under arrest for simple assault in connection with what they viewed as a domestic violence incident. DSMF at ¶ 20.

Plaintiffs and Defendants also dispute the manner in which the arrest of the Ianuale brothers occurred. According to Plaintiffs, Ferm first placed Robert in a compliance hold, violently swinging his "body around 360 degrees and harming [his] left shoulder and wrist" while handcuffing him. PSMF at ¶ 18. Then, according to Plaintiffs' version of events, Philip, who had been given no notice that he was under arrest, stated "I'm going home," opened up the door to exit the apartment, and held it open with his right hand, in order to allow Officer Ferm, who was escorting the detained Robert, "clear and safe passage." Id. at ¶ 20. At that point, Officer Bennett "jumped on [Phillip's] back," causing him to be "violently thrown down twoflights of stairs." Id. at ¶ 22. "In fear for his life," Phillip then "got to his feet and proceeded down the remaining stairs in order to put distance between him and his assailant." Id. at ¶ 24.¹

Defendants tell a different story. According to their version of events, Robert complied with orders and was placed under arrest without incident. DSMF at ¶ 21. Philip, however, ran towards the door, and sent himself and Bennett, who was blocking his path, hurtling down the stairs. Id. at ¶ 22. Philip then got up and, leaving the injured Bennett on the floor, continued down the stairs, while Johnson gave chase. Id. at ¶¶ 24-25. Philip was eventually located hiding at a property nearby, arrested, and charged with aggravated assault (police officer), resisting arrest/eluding officer, possession of CDS paraphernalia; simple assault; possession, use or being under the influence; and obstructing administration of law. Id. at ¶ 28. Robert was charged with simple assault (domestic violence). Id. at ¶ 27.

According to Plaintiffs, following the arrest, the officers ignored Robert, who was wearing only pajama pants, when he requested permission to fully cloth himself, and forced him outside, and eventually, to the police station. PSMF at ¶ 26. Officer Defendants attempted to have Robert sign a New Jersey Domestic Violence Act Victim Notification Form, listing Philip as the "Offender" and Defendant Johnson as the "Investigating Officer"; however, Robert refused to sign, and he was released and "forced to walk back to Plaintiffs' business premises in only his pajama pants, without a shirt or proper clothes, in freezing temperatures." Id. at ¶ 30.

In addition to the alleged incident, Plaintiffs also include facts concerning other interactions between them and the Officer Defendants. Only one such interaction is relevant toany of Plaintiffs' claims, however. Plaintiffs allege that on February 13, 2015, Officer Bennett issued a parking ticket in Philip's name to a vehicle that was registered to his father. Id. at ¶ 40. The ticket required a court appearance, but included an incorrect address and was never placed on the vehicle, which, according to Plaintiffs, was an intentional attempt to prevent notices of summons from being delivered to Philip so that a warrant could be issued against him. Id. at ¶ 42. On April 29, 2015, the parking ticket was dismissed by a municipal judge. Id. at ¶ 49. Robert also contends that he was terminated from his employment at Xerox during a routine background-check in 2015 that uncovered his arrest. Id. at ¶ 51.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff's Complaint raises the following claims:

• Count I, for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution, against Defendants Michael A. Ferm, Kevin Bennett, and Gregory Johnson;

• Count II, for false arrest and false imprisonment under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against all Defendants;

• Count III, for failure to intervene or intercede, pursuant to § 1983, against Defendants Ferm, Bennett, and Johnson;

• Count IV, for malicious prosecution, against all Defendants;

• Count V, for failure to train, under a theory of supervisory liability pursuant to § 1983, against Defendants Keyport, Keyport Police Department, and Casaletto;

• Count VI, for failure to train, under a theory of municipal liability pursuant to § 1983, against Defendants Keyport, Keyport Police Department, and Casaletto;

• Count VII, for unlawful seizure and deprivation of liberty under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA"), against Defendants Ferm, Bennett, and Johnson;

• Count VIII, for deprivation of rights under the NJCRA, against all Defendants;

• Count IX, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, raised against Defendants Ferm, Bennett, and Johnson;

• Count X, for assault and battery, raised against Defendants Bennett and Keyport;• Count XI, for malicious prosecution, against Defendants Bennett and Keyport;

• Count XII, for assault and battery, against Defendants Ferm and Keyport;

• Count XIII, for civil conspiracy, against all Defendants;

• Count XIV, for negligent hiring and training, against Defendants Keyport and Keyport Police Department;

• Count XV, for invasion of privacy, against all Defendants;

• Count XVI, for abuse of process, against all Defendants; and

• Count XVII, for violation of Plaintiffs' due process rights, pursuant to § 1983, against all Defendants.

Keyport and Officer Defendants separately move for summary judgment on each of these claims, arguing that the § 1983 and NJCRA claims are barred by qualified immunity, that the New Jersey Tort Claims Act ("NJTCA") immunizes them from the common law tort claims, and that the allegations fail to state a claim for Monell liability against Keyport Defendants. Defendants also assert that certain claims are...