Sign Up for Vincent AI
Noble v. City of Camden
Gabriel Z. Levin, Esq., Levin & Zeiger LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Daniel E. Rybeck, Esq., John C. Eastlack, Jr., Esq., Weir & Partners LLP, The Liberty View Building, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Defendants City of Camden and Officer Jeffrey W. Frampton.
James H. Waller, Esq., Haddon Heights, NJ, for Defendant Officer Christopher Frucci.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is about Plaintiff Robert Noble's encounter, one evening in January 2012, with several members of the Camden Police Department, which began when Defendant Christopher Frucci approached Plaintiff as Plaintiff was taking a nap in his car. A scuffle ensued with Frucci and Defendant Officer Jeffrey Frampton, and Plaintiff was brought directly to the hospital after the encounter for medical treatment. He suffered a fractured rib, bruises, and abrasions as a result of being punched and kicked by the officers. Plaintiff was charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest, but the charges were later dropped.
Plaintiff filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment violations of excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, and various state tort claims against Frucci and Frampton, as well as Monell claims against the City of Camden for having a policy or custom of using excessive force, and for failing to train and supervise its officers on the appropriate use of force. Presently before the Court are summary judgment motions by the City of Camden and Officer Jeffrey Frampton [Docket Item 24], and Officer Christopher Frucci [Docket Item 22].
Certain key facts in this case are contested. Defendants contend that during the encounter, Plaintiff shoved Frampton in the chest and resisted when Defendants then tried to arrest him for assault. They argue that in the ensuing scuffle, Frampton and Frucci struck and punched Plaintiff a few times in the knee, arm, and face. Plaintiff contends that he made no move against either officer and that he was punched and kicked by at least four officers repeatedly for five minutes or more while he was restrained.
Notwithstanding the factual dispute, Frampton and Frucci seek to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claims against them, arguing that their use of force against Plaintiff was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff because Plaintiff shoved Frampton; and that they are shielded by qualified immunity. They also argue that Plaintiff's state tort claims must be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim as required by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. N.J.S.A. 59:8–8.
The City of Camden seeks dismissal of the Monell claims, arguing that there is no evidence of a policy or custom of using excessive force, nor any evidence of improper training or supervision.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny summary judgment on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Frampton and Frucci and the Monell claim against the City of Camden for failing to investigate the use of excessive force. The Court will grant summary judgment on all other claims.
II. BACKGROUND
The Court begins with the summary judgment record.1 After finishing work on a private residence on the evening of January 26, 2012, Plaintiff Robert Noble, a self-employed remodeler of residential homes, drove his part-time assistant, Adam Lee, home to Mr. Lee's residence on Norris Street in Camden, New Jersey. At about 6:30 p.m., after dropping Mr. Lee off, Plaintiff parked his car on Norris Street to take a nap before driving home. (Def. Statement of Material Facts ("SMF") [Docket Item 21] 7–12.)
At around the same time, members of the Camden Police Department were in the area assisting New Jersey state parole officers with home visits of parolees. Defendants Officer Jeffrey Frampton and Officer Christopher Frucci were among the officers providing assistance. Frampton and Frucci were wearing plain clothes with either sweatshirts or vests that said "POLICE" across the chest. (Dep. of Christopher Frucci ("Frucci Dep.") [Docket Item 21] 47:16–48:13; SMF 15–16.) Plaintiff asserts that they were also wearing black ski masks that obscured the entire face except for the eyes. (Dep. of Robert Noble ("Noble Dep.") [Docket Item 24] 49:15–50:3.)
While Frampton and Frucci were securing the outside of one home on Norris Street, Frucci noticed Plaintiff's truck parked on the corner of Morton and Norris Street. (Frucci Dep. 42:22–43:3.) According to Frucci, the corner of Morton and Norris is a "high crime, high drug, high gun, violent area." (Frucci Dep. 41:22–24.) Frucci approached the truck to investigate.
The following facts are in dispute. According to Defendants, Frucci states that he saw Plaintiff "laid back" in the driver's seat, not in an upright, driving position. (Frucci Dep. 44:6–20.) He shined his flashlight into the truck, banged on the window, and said, in sum and substance, (Id. 45:25–46:21.) According to Frucci, once Plaintiff awoke, he "was immediately belligerent and angry" and was "moving real fast and aggressive in the car." (Id. 49:6–10.) Frucci alleges that he then identified himself as "Camden Police," told Plaintiff to "calm down," and asked Plaintiff if he was all right. Plaintiff responded by becoming more belligerent and telling Frucci to "get that f* * * * * * light out of my face." (Id. 49:15–21; Frampton Dep. 41:4–7.) Frucci continued to train his flashlight on Plaintiff, but claims that he specifically did not shine the flashlight in Plaintiff's face. (Frucci Dep. 52:23–53:2.)
According to Frucci, Plaintiff then "aggressively came out of the car," "screaming belligerently, hands in the air flailing around." (Frucci Dep. 54:12–17.) Frampton testified at deposition that Frucci asked Plaintiff to get out of the car, but Frucci testified that he never asked Plaintiff to get out. (Compare Frampton Dep. 42:22–25 with Frucci Dep. 53:18–20.) Frampton then walked over to where Plaintiff and Frucci were standing. Both officers yelled at Plaintiff "numerous times" to calm down. (Frampton Dep. 49:19–50:15.) According to both Frampton and Frucci, Plaintiff then shoved Frampton in the chest with both hands. (Frucci Dep. 55:2–7, 61:15–25; Frampton Dep. 45:12–14; 47:16–18.) Defendants then tried to place Plaintiff under arrest for assault. (Frucci Dep. 62:6–9; Frampton Dep. 57:1–2.)
Frampton and Frucci attempted to handcuff Plaintiff but Plaintiff fought the officers, so Frampton grabbed Plaintiff by the legs and "took him to the ground." (Frampton Dep. 57:6–10; 61:21–62:9.) Plaintiff fell face first and landed on his stomach. (Frampton Dep. 64:22–65:3.) Plaintiff had his arms underneath his body and kept resisting when Defendants tried to pull his arms out to handcuff him. (Frampton Dep. 66:23–67:6.) Defendants told Plaintiff that he was under arrest and yelled at Plaintiff to "stop resisting," and (Frucci Dep. 65:4–6.; Frampton Dep. 65:24–66:3.) According to Defendants, during the struggle on the ground which lasted approximately 30 seconds, Frampton punched Plaintiff's face twice (Frampton Dep. 67:15–21; 68:8–19), and Frucci kneed Plaintiff three to five times in the rib or shoulder plexus area and thigh, and punched Plaintiff's arm and leg three to five times. (Frucci Dep. 65:10–66:17.) Frampton and Frucci were then able to get Plaintiff's arm out and handcuff him. (Frampton Dep. 68:8–19.)
Frucci testified that other officers came over when they heard the altercation, but only he and Frampton were involved in the physical struggle with Plaintiff. (Frucci Dep. 68:21–69:16.)
By contrast, Plaintiff alleges that he was taking a nap in his truck with his dog when he was awoken by the sound of someone opening and shutting his passenger side door. (Noble Dep. 37:19–25.) He noticed two flashlights and a gun outside the window of his truck and was initially disoriented. (Id. 44:8–45:6.) Plaintiff then heard two people repeatedly say, "Out of the truck, mother f* * * * * *." (Id. 45:9–16.) Plaintiff rolled down his window and asked who they were, but they did not identify themselves and Plaintiff did not hear either of them say that they were police. (Id. 48:21–49:8.) The two officers continued to yell at Plaintiff to "get out of the truck." (Id. 51:15–18.) Plaintiff told the officers that he was getting out of his truck slowly. He opened the door and stepped out of his car with his hands in the air. (Id. 52:15–17; 53:23–54:1.)
Plaintiff testified at deposition that he repeatedly asked the men to identify themselves but they refused to do so and instead continued to yell at Plaintiff. He was not certain that they were police officers because they had no visible badge and the front of their clothing was obscured by the flashlights and gun. (Noble Dep. 50:4–16; 54:21–55:5; 55:25–56:3.). According to Plaintiff, Defendant Frampton then said, "You get cocky with me, mother* * * * *, I'll kick your a* *." (Id. 56:9–20; 58:5–9.) Frampton approached Plaintiff while Plaintiff had his hands up in the air. As Frampton approached, Plaintiff turned to face the door of his truck, and Frampton grabbed one arm and twisted it. Frucci approached Plaintiff from the other side and "ran right into [Plaintiff]" in a "piledrive" and grabbed Plaintiff's other arm. (Id. 59:25–61:7.) Plaintiff denies shoving or punching Frampton and testified that he was not resisting arrest. (Noble Dep. 114:17–22; 141:24–142:3.)
Plaintiff testified that while his arms were being restrained, he was hit in the back from behind by at least two other officers and felt a nightstick being poked into his back. (Noble Dep. 65:5–23.) Frampton and Frucci...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience 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
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart 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