Mesadieu v. City of Elizabeth

GUILIO MESADIEU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELIZABETH, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-842 (JMV/JBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

October 4, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

VAZQUEZ, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Guilio Mesadieu, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a federal civil rights complaint. (DE 1.) At this time,¹ the Court reviews Mesadieu's complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

For the reasons set forth below, Mesadieu's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unlawful search claim against police officer Jose Martinez, and that claim alone, is now permitted to proceed past screening. The Court will dismiss, with prejudice, Mesadieu's 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) civil conspiracy claims as against all defendants. Any and all such federal civil rights claims which Mesadieu asserts against the Elizabeth Police Department as a standalone municipal entityare also dismissed with prejudice. All other claims in Mesadieu's pleading are dismissed without prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

The present civil action arises out of the purportedly unlawful actions committed on - and otherwise associated with - Mesadieu's February 9, 2016 arrest by members of the Elizabeth Police Department ("EPD"). Mesadieu's Complaint names the following defendants: (1) City of Elizabeth;² (2) Union County; (3) EPD Chief of Police Patrick Shannon; (4) EPD Detective Frammigen; (5) EPD Lieutenant Robert Kelly; (6) EPD Sergeant Todd Kelly; (7) EPD Sergeant Rodney Dorilus; (8) EPD Officer Jose Martinez; (9) EPD Officer Raul Delaprida; (10) EPD Officer Guillermo Valladares; (11) EPD Officer Kevin Kelly; (12) EPD Officer Jose Torres; (13) EPD Officer Rui Xavier; (14) Luis Figueiredo; (15) Union County Prosecutor Grace H. Park; (16) Assistant Attorney General ("AAG") Daniel Ian Bornstein; (17) Union County ("UC") Sheriff's Officer Timothy O'Grady; (18) UC Sheriff's Officer Bryan Frew; (19) Bergen County Prosecutor's Office ("BCPO") Detective James Eckert (20) BCPO Detective Ismael Alsina; and (21) John Does 1-60. (DE 1 at 1-2, 5-12.³)

The specific factual allegations in Mesadieu's Complaint, which the Court assumes as true for present screening purposes, are as follows. On the morning of February 9, 2016, otherwise unidentified "Elizabeth Police defendants initiated an unlawful motor vehicle stop of [Mesadieu's] company vehicle on his way to work." (Id. at 13.) Mesadieu "did not commit any traffic violations" and these "defendants [instead] falsely and willfully issued multiple falsified motor vehicle citations [to justify that stop]." (Id. at 16.)

After Mesadieu's "vehicle was in park, [he] grabbed his credentials and was holding them up in both hands." (Id. at 13.) EPD officers nonetheless "approached his vehicle, banging and hitting the passenger side . . . while making hysterical noises." (Id.) In addition, "Defendant Kelly⁴ pointed a gun at [Mesadieu's] head and threaten[ed] to kill [him]." (Id.) After EPD officers removed Mesadieu "from his vehicle[, they] commenced an illegal search [of it]." (Id. at 14.) Officer Jose Martinez also searched Mesadieu's person, during which time he removed $4,900 from Mesadieu's jacket.⁵ When Mesadieu refused to sign a "consent to search form" that Martinez presented to him "after defendants . . . violated [his] constitutional rights," Mesadieu was placed in an EPD vehicle. (Id.) Ultimately, "the illegal search [of Mesadieu's person and vehicle] did not lead to the discovery of any contraband, [and] defendants [therefore] falsely, willfully, and unlawfully charged [him] with possession of a handgun and certain person not to possess weapon."⁶ (Id. at 15.)

Mesadieu was then transported to EPD headquarters. Upon arriving there, otherwise unidentified defendants "ridicule[d Mesadieu] by saying 'we're setting you up' and . . . chanting 'Donald Trump.'" (Id. at 14.) Mesadieu was then, at his request, taken to EPD's internal affairs ("IA") office, where he was formally arrested. (Id. at 15.) Mesadieu's February 9, 2016 arrest occurred notwithstanding that "defendants confessed in front of [non-defendant, IA Detective Moloney] that they were setting [Mesadieu] up with a gun." (Id.) This arrest allowed unidentified BPD officers to "cover up their misconduct and corruptions." (Id.; see also id. at 17.) Moreover, but for the defendants' falsification of evidence and willful refusal to produce certain "exculpatory information," e.g., otherwise unspecified "video recording evidence" and information about his IA appearance on February 9, 2016, Mesadieu "would have been able to prove[] his innocence." (Id. at 18.) The actions taken by defendants to cover-up their misconduct and withhold exculpatory evidence were committed in conjunction with a "code of silence" policy among all defendants. (Id. at 17.)

Mesadieu believes that the foregoing actions were motivated by his refusal to become a confidential informant ("CI"). In that respect, he specifically notes that "prior to [his] unlawful arrest [on February 9, 2016, he] was interviewed by the Union County Prosecutor's detectives[,]" who, at that time,⁷ delivered an ultimatum: Mesadieu could either become a [CI] for Union Countyand [EPD]" or be sent "to prison for the false charges which [he is] currently [incarcerated]." (Id. at 16.) Mesadieu's arrest occurred after he "refused the ultimatum." (Id. at 16.) While Mesadieu relatedly claims that Prosecutor Park and AAG Bornstein were also involved in his "wrongful[] imprison[ment] for [his] refusal [to become] a confidential informant" (see id. at 19), he does not detail any personal interactions that he had with either defendant or any overt actions taken by Park and Bornstein which might otherwise provide factual support for this allegation.

Mesadieu alleges that the foregoing actions violated rights secured to him by the United States Constitution. He specifically claims that his unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 17-18.) He further claims that the "officer defendants . . . , in targeting [Mesadieu] based on corruption, denied him equal protection of the law, in violation of the . . Fourteenth Amendment." (Id. at 25.) He likewise claims that these otherwise unspecified defendants, "in writing falsified traffic citations and police report[s] base[d] on corruption constituted selective enforcement of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." (Id. at 26.) Mesadieu adds that the defendants, "in conspiring to target, arrest, unlawfully seiz[e], and falsify[] police report[s,]" violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3),⁸ and 1986. (Id. at 26-27.) He also specifically alleges that the defendants conspired to deny him access to the exculpatory evidence detailed above, and that their conspiratorial actions have denied him his constitutionalright of access to the Courts. (Id. at 19, 20, 27.) Mesadieu also asserts state tort claims for assault, wrongful imprisonment, corrupt misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against various named defendants. (Id. at 28-29.)

Mesadieu further claims that Prosecutor Park, AAG Borstein, EPD Police Chief Shannon, Elizabeth, and Union County "are directly liable for [his] damages" under numerous theories of supervisory liability. (Id. at 17, 21-24.) He claims that the above-named defendants' failure to properly supervise defendants has resulted in a "well settled and permanent policy" in which prosecutors and police officers are allowed to "wrongfully arrest individuals" and to "forc[e] them to become [CIs]." (Id. at 21.) He avers that all of these defendants "are under a duty to supervise the members of the [EPD] and to ensure that the policing activities of the [EPD] are run in a lawful manner" and that they "permitted, encouraged, tolerated, and knowingly acquiesced to an official pattern, practice, or custom of police officers, and prosecutors, including but not limited to defendants, of violating [Mesadieu's] rights based on corruptions." (Id. at 20-21.) He claims that "[t]hese defendants failed to train and properly supervise police officers regarding proper arrest procedures and techniques." (Id. at 22.) Mesadieu further avers that these five defendants are all responsible for "policies or customs of inadequate training, supervision, discipline, screening, or hiring." (Id.)

Mesadieu similarly claims that Prosecutor Park "has a supervisory role over the assistant prosecutor, prosecutor detective defendants and the [EPD] officer defendants[,]" and that she "has been place[d] on notice of the misconduct of her subordinates by a number of complaints of the unlawful practice, pattern or custom of her subordinates in molding and/or blackmailing the citizens of Union County or others, and forcing them [to] becom[e CIs] . . . and has failed to act to curb this behavior or otherwise correct the constitutional violations." (Id. at 18.) He also aversthat Park "has a 'code of silence' policy between prosecutors and police whereby prosecutors do not report misconduct of other prosecutor or police, and failed to take the necessary steps to break the 'code of silence.'" (Id. at 19.) Mesadieu similarly alleges that Chief Shannon "chose to abide by the 'code of silence' policy . . . whereby officers would not report misconduct of other officers and [he] failed to take the necessary steps to break the 'code of silence.'" (Id. at 17.)

Critically, and as the above summary indicates, Mesadieu's complaint fails to contain any specific allegations, against many of the defendants formally identified in the caption of his Complaint. He instead makes sweeping claims against "all defendants" and/or all "officer defendants." Indeed, Mesadieu's pleading fails to contain any...