Sign Up for Vincent AI
Jacobs v. Cumberland Cnty.
Surinder K. Aggarwal
The Law Offices of Surinder K. Aggarwal
86 Court Street
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
A. Michael Barker, Greg Paul DiLorenzo, and Vanessa Elain James
Barker, Gelfand, James & Sarvas, P.C.
Linwood Greene, Suite 12
Linwood, New Jersey 08221
Chance & McCann LLC
201 West Commerce Street
Counsel for Defendants Neal Armstrong (i/p/a Neil Armstrong), Michael Anderson, Emanual Marrero (i/p/a Emanual Morrero), and Manual Velazquez (i/p/a Manual Velesquez)
Weir & Partners LLP
20 Brace Road, Suite 200
Counsel for Defendants Cumberland County and Warden Robert Balicki RODRIGUEZ, Senior District Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
This civil rights matter stems from the purported use of excessive force against the plaintiff, Raheem Jacobs, by the corrections officers who removed him from Cumberland County Jail's ("CCJ's") "C" dorm on the morning of February 25, 2015. Presently before the Court are three separate motions for summary judgment filed by defendants: (1) Michael Williams (at DE 89), a CCJ corrections officer ("CO") who was captured on video delivering three quick strikes to Jacobs as he was being handcuffed; (2) CCJ corrections officers Michael Anderson, Neil Armstrong, Emanual Marrero, and Manual Velazquez (the "Other CO Defendants") (at DE 91), all four of whom were, in varying degrees, also involved in restraining and removing Jacobs on February 25th; and (3) CCJ's warden, Robert Balicki, and Cumberland County (the "Supervisory Defendants") (at DE 90). Jacobs opposes all three motions. (DE 96.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court enter summary judgment in favor of the Supervisory Defendants on all claims against them. Williams' and the Other CO Defendants' respective motions, on the other hand, will be granted in part and denied in part.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2015, at approximately 8:35 a.m., Jacobs - who was then a pre-trial detainee - and another inmate also housed in "C" dorm, Bruce Hanby, got into a fistfight. (See, e.g., Jacobs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMF") ¶¶ 2-3, DE 96-5; see also CCJ's Feb. 25, 2015 Surveillance Video, DE 91-20.) Jacobs andHanby's respective accounts of that altercation differ. Hanby, by way of an April 13, 2018 written statement, indicated that he (DE 89-9.) Jacobs, on the other hand, testified that Hanby only managed to punch him in the lip two or three times before another inmate, Bill Matthews, broke the fight up. (See Jacobs' Mar 12, 2018 Dep. Tr. 28-29, DE 91-22.) Although the parties disagree on which of Jacobs' February 25th injuries are attributable to Hanby, specifically, it is undisputed that Jacobs did not walk away from that fight unscathed.
Less than five minutes later, at 8:39 a.m., CCJ corrections officers entered "C" dorm to remove the two as-of-then-unidentified CCJ inmates who fought. (See DE 91-20.) The officers readily identified Hanby as one of the two assailants and removed him to CCJ's medical unit. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Officers Anderson, Armstrong, Williams, and Velazquez - but not Marrero - returned to "C" dorm to remove the other individual involved in the physical altercation, i.e., Jacobs. (See CCJ's Feb. 25, 2015 Surveillance Video, DE 91-18.) Officer Armstrong located Jacobs in the shower, observed that he had "several cuts in his upper [and] bottom lips as well as blood coming from his nose," and told him to return to his bed and get dressed. (See Armstrong's Feb. 25, 2015 Use of Force Report, DE 96-3 at Ex. L.)
CCJ surveillance video shows Jacobs returning to his bunk at 9:02 a.m. (See DE 91-18.) The soundless video further shows that one minute later, at 9:03 a.m., OfficerArmstrong approached Jacobs from behind as he was hunched over and sorting through various items on his bed. (Id.) Armstrong then proceeded to stand Jacobs upright and began handcuffing him from this standing position. Although there is substantial dispute between the parties as to what Jacobs and the corrections officers said to each other in the moments before Armstrong began restraining Jacobs, it does not appear from the video that Armstrong used undue force to get Jacobs to comply, nor does it appear that Jacobs was, in any way, actively resisting Armstrong's efforts to handcuff him. (Id.)
The surveillance video clearly shows that in the next few seconds, as Armstrong was handcuffing Jacobs, and after both of Jacobs' arms were behind him, Officer Williams delivered two quick strikes to Jacobs' neck and head, at which point, Armstrong took Jacobs to the ground as Williams swung at Jacobs for a third time. (Id.) Williams delivered all three blows in less than one second. (Id.) The video of the incident indicates that Williams' attack on Jacobs was sudden and - as far as this Court is able to observe - wholly unexpected. (Id.) The video conclusively shows that Armstrong and Anderson were the only two COs in the immediate proximity of Williams as he hit Jacobs.1 (Id.)
Armstrong and Anderson then proceeded to restrain Jacobs on the ground as Williams loomed over all three of them. (Id.) The video does not completely capture Armstrong and Anderson's actions in the twenty-second period that Jacobs remained on"C" dorm's floor; it clearly shows only that the two officers were on top of him. (Id.) While it appears, based on the Court's review of the video, that neither of these officers, as Jacobs now claims, beat him on his head, kneed him, and punched him while he was on the ground (see Jacobs' Dep. Tr. 32, DE 91-22), the video is ultimately inconclusive on this point. (See DE 91-18.) The video, does, however, clearly refute Jacobs' assertion that "Officer Williams was [] kicking [Jacobs] in [his] back" as he lay on the ground. (See Jacobs' Dep. Tr. 32, DE 91-22.) The video next shows Armstrong and Anderson standing Jacobs back up and Armstrong then escorting Jacobs out of "C" dorm in handcuffs. (DE 91-18.) This entire sequence of events - beginning with Jacobs returning to his bunk and ending with Jacobs being escorted away in handcuffs - occurred in roughly thirty seconds. (See id.)
Armstrong then walked Jacobs to CCJ's medical unit. This walk was captured on multiple other CCJ surveillance videos. (See CCJ's Feb. 25, 2015 Surveillance Video, DE 91-21.) All such video evidence shows Jacobs being escorted to CCJ's medical unit in handcuffs without further incident. (Id.) That said, it is undisputed that in the course of taking Jacobs to medical, Armstrong led Jacobs onto an elevator that did not have a surveillance camera. Jacobs claims that when he got to the elevator, otherwise unidentified corrections officers "slammed [his] face into [it]" and continued "beating [him] up furthermore." (See Jacobs' Dep. Tr. 32, DE 91-22.) The record establishes that the only COs involved in escorting Jacobs on and off the elevator were Officers Armstrong and Marrero.
Jacobs received treatment for his injuries at Inspira Medical Center in Vineland,New Jersey, on the same day of the incident. (See Inspira's Feb. 25, 2015 Final Report, DE 96-2 at Ex. C; accord Jacobs' SUMF ¶ 71, DE 96-5.) While there, Jacobs was formally diagnosed with "nasal fractures [] with mild deviation toward the right" and "facial and scalp swelling." (DE 96-2 at Ex. C.) As alluded to above, it is unclear which of these injuries are attributable to Inmate Hanby and which were caused by Officer Williams and/or the Other CO Defendants.
Whenever force is utilized, CCJ corrections officers are required to prepare and submit a use of force report ("UFR") on the same day that any such incident occurs. In accordance with this mandate, Officers Anderson, Armstrong, Williams, and Velazquez all prepared separate UFRs regarding the force utilized against Jacobs on February 25, 2015.2 (See Defs.' Feb. 25, 2015 UFRs, DE 96-3 at Ex. L.)
Officer Armstrong's UFR states that when Jacobs returned to his bunk, (Id.) Armstrong reported that he then "grabbed [Jacobs'] jumper by the collar and took him face down to the ground and handcuffed him." (Id.) Williams' UFR indicates that (Id.) Anderson's report states that he "assisted in restraining [Jacobs] while he was on the ground with Officers Armstrong and [] Williams." (Id.) Velazquez's UFR states that Jacobs "stood up in an aggressive manner [as he was collecting his things and] started towards [Armstrong] who proceeded to take him to [the] ground and handcuff him from behind." (Id.) Notably, not one of these UFRs indicates that Williams struck Jacobs.
In accordance with CCJ's standard practice, defendants' February 25, 2015 use of force reports - like all other UFRs - were reviewed internally by, among others, a CCJ sergeant, lieutenant, and captain. (See Balicki's May 14, 2018 Dep. Tr. 27-29, DE 90-2 at Ex. 17.) The CCJ captain who reviewed the defendants' UFRs, Radames Morales Jr., concluded,...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting