Steinhardt v. Bernardsville Police Dep't

ANNETTE L. STEINHARDT, Plaintiff, v. BERNARDSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-2169 (MAS) (LHG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

August 31, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SHIPP, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Bernardsville Police Department, Kevin Valentine, Brian Kelly, Paul Kelley, William Ussery, and Steven Seipel's (collectively, the "Individual Responding Defendants" and, with the Bernardsville Police Department, "Responding Defendants") Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint of pro se Plaintiff Annette L. Steinhardt ("Plaintiff"). (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff opposed the Motion. (ECF No. 81.) Defendants Somerset County Prosecutor's Office, Brian Hoey, Douglas Brownlie, and Thomas L. White (collectively, "SCPO Defendants" and, with the Responding Defendants, "Defendants") did not respond to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint.¹ The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, Responding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND²

A. Factual Background³

This matter arises out of a series of events occurring between March 2015 and February 2017. (FAC 5, ECF No. 75.)⁴ Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "exhibited actions and/or inactions that raise[] issues with Federal and State [l]aw and [v]iolations of Constitutional [r]ights." (Id.) When analyzing Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, the Court noted that "[t]he timeline of the Complaint's narrative jump[ed] around without warning or purpose[,] and [was] replete with non-sequiturs and perplexing tangents." (Mem. Op. 8, ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint is no different. The Court, therefore, attempts to recount Plaintiff's allegations in chronological order, to the best of its ability.

On or around June 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed an insurance claim with Allstate Insurance "for property damages, theft[,] and assets." (FAC 6.)⁵ A representative from Allstate Insurance directed Plaintiff to request a police report relating to the incident from the Bernardsville Police Department. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently visited the Bernardsville Police Department "to obtain a [p]olice [r]eport for Allstate Insurance," and showed Steven Seiple photographs of the damaged property. (Id.) Plaintiff avers, however, that Seiple did not personally review the evidence of the damage firsthand. (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that Seiple contacted Allstate Insurance to inform them Plaintiff "had abandoned [her] home and property" despite Plaintiff proving otherwise. (Id.) Seiple twice informed Plaintiff that no police report would be provided, and suggested she instead file a complaint with the Bernardsville Municipal Court. (Id. at 6-7.)⁶

After failing to obtain the police report, Plaintiff reached out to the Somerset County Police Department for assistance. (Id. at 7.) Detectives Paul Kelley and Brian Kelly visited Plaintiff's residence "and noticed all the furniture, electronics[,] and other home items [were] thrown about in the back yard." (Id.) They asked Plaintiff for photos of the damaged and stolen property and jewelry, which Plaintiff provided. (Id. at 8.) When Plaintiff attempted to follow-up with Detective Brian Kelly, "no other response or support was given by him." (Id.) Detective Paul Kelley similarly stopped responding to Plaintiff's phone calls and refused "to go any further with the [p]olice [r]eport and [i]nvestigation or answer any of [] Plaintiff's questions." (Id.) Plaintiff avers that"[t]he Bernardsville Police Department . . . conspired with each other for the sole purpose [of] caus[ing] Plaintiff harm. . . . under the color of law." (Id.) Plaintiff notes that she "brought this issue up to the Bernardsville [Borough] Council and Mayor via email and alerted them that they were refusing a police report or to take any action." (Id.) Neither the Mayor nor the Council took any action. (Id.) Plaintiff avers that, in total, she suffered a loss of $384,000 "due to stolen, damaged property[,] and was unable to replace or repair damages without assistance from her homeowner's insurance policy." (Id.)⁷

Despite her previous assertions that Steven Seiple failed to provide her with a police report, Plaintiff next avers that "Steven Seiple and Paul Kelley [wrote] out [p]olice [r]eports that state Plaintiff [has] a [v]alid [c]ontract[,]" which was entered into evidence and contains Plaintiff's name and signature. (Id. at 9.)⁸ Plaintiff received letter correspondence from Chief Kevin Valentine stating that "by law he is not allowed to provide a copy of the legal, binding contract." (Id.) Plaintiff contends she subsequently filed a complaint with the New Jersey Government Records Council who "vote[d] that the contract must be handed over to [] Plaintiff." (Id.) Chief Valentine sent letter correspondence to the Government Records Council stating that while "no contract is on file in the [Bernardsville] Police Department, . . . a proposal . . . signed by [] Plaintiff's mother exists." (Id.) Plaintiff appears to assert that the contract or proposal was fraudulent. (Id.) Plaintiff further claims that the "Bernardsville Police Department tried to have []Plaintiff forced into a contract against her will for the sole purpose to cause harm[] [and] un[due] duress." (Id. at 10.)

On or about September 9, 2015, Detectives Paul Kelley and Brian Kelly recorded a meeting they had with Plaintiff wherein they "interrogate[d] the Plaintiff on subjects that have nothing to do with property loss and harm." (Id. at 10.) Instead, they asked Plaintiff questions about her background, people she knows, and whether any complaints had been filed against the Bernardsville Police Department. (Id.)

On or about October 2, 2015, Plaintiff received letter correspondence from Captain Brian Hoey addressing a complaint Plaintiff had filed with the "NJ Department of Corruptions" (the "Official Complaint"). (Id.) Although Plaintiff provides an identification number for the Official Complaint—200100258—it is not clear that any such named agency exists or what agency Plaintiff is attempting to reference. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, the Official Complaint "is a sealed, protected witness statement of a sexual assault of a minor that the Bernardsville Police Department help[ed] cover up by shredding the evidence [to ensure] the assailant would not be prosecuted." (Id.)⁹ Plaintiff filed a request pursuant to the New Jersey Open Records Act ("OPRA")¹⁰ seeking information relating to the Official Complaint, but her request was denied. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff alleges, however, that pursuant to her OPRA request, she learned that Brian Hoey "admit[ted] tousing software to gain access to the New Jersey Department of Corruptions data[base] to get information" on the Official Complaint. (Id.)¹¹ Douglas Brownlie also "reached out to [] Plaintiff regarding her Official Complaint. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff contends that "[b]y [] writing [to] the Plaintiff, [Brownlie] was harassing the Plaintiff [by] both being unwarranted and harmful." (Id.)

The remaining allegations of the FAC generally do not reference any specific dates or times, and it is unclear to the Court exactly where in the narrative timeline of the FAC Plaintiff is alleging these incidents occurred. These allegations include: (1) that the Responding Defendants and the SCPO Defendants engaged in multiple conspiracies to harm Plaintiff (id. at 13); (2) that Defendants "prevented the Plaintiff from addressing [her] property rights in a court of law" (id.); (3) that Defendants "entered falsified police reports into a court of law with the sole purpose [of] prevent[ing] the Plaintiff from going to trial in an attempt to get [her] property restored, returned[,] and [to] have the perpetrator stand trial in State Court in Somerville, [New Jersey]" (id.)¹²; (4) that Plaintiff was the victim of "selective enforcement" because "the perpetrator" received favorable treatment from the Bernardsville Police Department (id. at 14, 17); (5) that "[m]onths [went] by and [the] perpetrator was still in [Plaintiff's] home and jewelry in [the] bathroom [] was discovered stolen, along with various other items" (id. at 14); (6) that, after Plaintiff received a telephone call from a patrolman who stated "that the perpetrator wanted his equipment [back]," and after Plaintiff placed the perpetrator's equipment outside of her home and informed Steven Seiple that the items were ready to be picked up, Plaintiff was charged with "an indictable offense" (id. at 15)¹³; (7) thatPlaintiff attended a hearing relating to this offense, but (i) "no record of this hearing can be found," and (ii) the "court destroyed court records and all evidence of a trial" (id.); and finally, (8) that Plaintiff's due process rights were violated by Defendants because, inter alia, they (i) failed to "collect evidence and preserve evidence," (ii) failed "to document facts via official police reports[,]" and (iii) "created fraudulent reports to harm the Plaintiff" (id. at 16).

B. Procedural Background

This case has a long procedural history before this Court. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's Amended, Second Amended, and Third Amended Complaints. (ECF Nos. 32, 54, 74.) Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint was an action for "money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and [§] 1988." (Third Am. Compl. *3, ECF No. 57.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's § 1988 claims with prejudice, dismissed her Section 1983 claims without prejudice, and permitted "Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend her complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court of New Jersey's Local Civil Rules, and the Court's specific filing instructions." (Nov. 19, 2019 Order 2, ECF No. 74.)

On December 16,...