Wilson v. Somerset Cnty. Prosecutors Office

DAVID WILSON, Plaintiff, v. SOMERSET COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-6034 (FLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

March 21, 2016

OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter having been opened to the Court by Defendants Somerset County Prosecutor's Office's ("SCPO") and Prosecutor Matthew Murphy's (collectively "Prosecutor Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). For the reasons expressed in this Opinion, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's section 1983 and New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJ CRA") claims pursuant to its screening authority, deny Defendants' motion to dismiss in light of the Court's sua sponte dismissal of the federal claims, decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims, and remand the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff's section 1983 claims in this action are related to two previous actions that were litigated in this District. In Wilson v. Piazza, et al., an excessive force case filed on June 30, 2010 (the "2010 action"), Plaintiff alleged that on December 3, 2008, Bernard Township Police Officer Anthony Piazza discharged his weapon at him after Plaintiff had already surrendered, thus causing Plaintiff to flee.¹ (Civ. No. 10-3356 MLC, ECF No. 1.) While that litigation was proceeding, on July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed another action in state court against the SCPO (the "2012 action"), alleging that two Somerset County Prosecutors, Peter DeMarco and Robert Pollack, failed to obtain the internal affairs reports related to Piazza's discharge of his weapon and withheld evidence from the grand jury during Plaintiff's prosecution stemming from his 2008 arrest. That complaint also alleged that the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office failed to train its employees on the proper disclosure of such evidence. (See Civ. No. 12-5068 PGS, ECF No. 1.) The gravamen of Plaintiff's 2012 Complaint appears to be that the withheld facts regarding the Piazza's use of his firearm would have negated Plaintiff's guilt on the resisting arrest charge. The defendants there removed the 2012 action to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaint, and the Court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds on May 21, 2013. The Court also declined to exercise supplementaljurisdiction over any remaining state law claims, and remanded the case to state court. See Wilson v. Somerset County Prosecutor's Office, et al., Civ. No. 12-5068, 2013 WL 2243836, at *3 (D.N.J. May, 21, 2013).

The 2010 action against Officer Piazza eventually settled, and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of that action on December 3, 2012. (See Civ. Act. No. 10-3356, ECF No. 88, Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice.) The stipulation of dismissal is signed only by Plaintiff and Officer Piazza, but Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint filed in this action that the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office was a party to the settlement in the 2010 action. (See ECF No. 7-3, Am Compl. at ¶ 4.)

The foregoing background leads to the litigation currently before the Court. Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 14, 2015 against the SCPO and Prosecutor Murphy, alleging violations of his civil rights under section 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA). After receiving an extension of time to Answer, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on August 27, 2015. (ECF No. 3.) On September 5, 2015, Plaintiff wrote to the Court seeking an extension of time to file his reply, and on September 16, 2015, he submitted a motion to amend his Complaint, attaching a proposed Amended Complaint, which was docketed on September 25, 2015. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.)

In that Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on January 20, 2015, he was arrested in Somerset County and charged with eluding and related offenses, and was indicted approximately 45 days later.² (ECF No. 15-6034, Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 1-2, 7.) He further alleges that he sought release on bail and applied for entry into a drug rehabilitation program. (Id.) The SCPO opposed his bail application and his entry into the rehabilitation program. In opposition toPlaintiff's application, Somerset County Prosecutor Murphy submitted a brief, dated March 20, 2015, in which he allegedly relied on a sentencing report written by the state court judge who sentenced Plaintiff in 2010 in connection with the charges arising from his December 3, 2008 arrest. Plaintiff alleges that the sentencing report, in turn, incorporated Officer Piazza's allegedly false account of Plaintiff's 2008 arrest, and thus left out the fact that Piazza allegedly fired his gun at Plaintiff during the arrest, causing Plaintiff to flee after he had tried to surrender. (Id.)

An excerpt of the brief allegedly submitted by Prosecutor Murphy reads as follows:

While sentencing defendant Wilson in January 2010, the [sentencing judge], recited the following eerily similar case facts,

[t]he relevant facts concerning the instant charges are: On December 3, 2008, Bernards Township Police were on patrol on I-78 east when the officer observed a vehicle approaching him from the rear at a high rate of speed. The officer maneuvered to let the vehicle pass and ran the vehicle's license plate, determining that the vehicle was stolen. The officer closed the gap between the vehicles and activated his lights in an attempt to stop the vehicle. The vehicle failed to pull over and accelerated to over 95 mph before exiting I-78 at Exit 40, nearly crashing into another vehicle on the exit ramp. The driver passed this car and continued onto Hillcrest Road, crossing the double-yellow line into oncoming traffic and passing another vehicle before running a stop sign at the end of the road and traveling east on Valley Road. The driver again crossed into oncoming traffic, travelling at an excessive rate of speed before running a light and making a left turn onto Deep Dale Drive. The driver crashed the vehicle into the yard at 7 Deep Dale Drive and fled on foot, being located a short distance from the vehicle. Officers located the defendant as well as [his] passenger . . . and took them into custody.

We submit that defendant's criminal history fully supports our genuine fear that, if released from custody, defendant Wilson will likely cause the death of an innocent citizen while either attempting to steal their car or while eluding the police. For that reason, the State would never extend nor accept a negotiated pleaoffer that contemplated defendant's release from custody - even to a drug rehabilitation center.³

Civ. Act. No. 10-3356 (MLC), ECF No. 89, at 5-7.) Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that the SCPO and Prosecutor Murphy "knowingly used a sentencing statement that was drafted from a tainted fabr[i]cated police report, to deny Plaintiff entry into a drug treatment program. (ECF No. 7-1 at 2.) Plaintiff refers to the police report as the "Piazza Report." (ECF No. 7-3, Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 1-2.)

According to Plaintiff, Prosecutor Murphy failed to disclose in his brief opposing Plaintiff's bail and drug treatment applications that Piazza fired his gun at Plaintiff after he had surrendered, which caused Plaintiff to flee, and that Murphy had "constructive knowledge" that Plaintiff had already sued the SCPO for concealing the Piazza Report. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 8.) With respect to Prosecutor Murphy, Plaintiff also contends that Prosecutor Murphy also stated in his opposition brief that Plaintiff's addiction was not authentic even though Murphy had access to Plaintiff's medical records, which indicated that Plaintiff had an authentic addiction. Plaintiff further alleges that Murphy induced other John Doe employees to represent false facts to the sentencing court and ordered them to rely on Prosecutor Murphy's brief at Plaintiff's Drug Court hearing. He does not identify these John Doe employees as defendants. (Id. at ¶ 11.) In addition to his federal and NJCRA claims, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint also alleges violations of state law by Defendant Murphy, arising from the same alleged conduct. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint further alleges that Defendant SCPO "was responsible for [D]efendant Murphy's use of the Piazza Report after having constructive knowledge of its taintedness [sic] but, was reckless and disregardful of that fact." (Id. at ¶ 3.) He alleges that the SCPO knew that Piazza was forced to resign for fabricating the police report in connection with Plaintiff's 2008 arrest and should have "contain[ed]" the fabricated evidence. (Id.) He also alleges that the SCPO knew about the 2010 action, in which Plaintiff's sued Officer Piazza for excessive force, because they were "combin[e]d for settlement purposes, due to having the same insurance company." (Id. at ¶ 4.) Finally, he alleges that the SCPO had evidence in their possession which indicated that the original sentencing judge was not aware that he drafted his sentencing report from a fabricated police report, and the SCPO also deceived the judge who sentenced Plaintiff in connection with his more recent 2015 eluding charges. (Id. at ¶¶ 11.)

Finally, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that that Defendant Murphy's brief was filed as "an act of retaliation for bringing a past suit against [the SCPO]" and that both the SCPO and Murphy opposed his application for bail and drug treatment "as an act of retaliation." (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 15.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also asserts that he does not challenge his conviction for eluding or the length of his sentence and describes his civil suit as "malicious deprivation of entry into a drug treatment program." (Id. at ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff seeks damages and several forms equitable relief, including: (1) an order declaring the Piazza Report to be "illegal" and restraining Defendants from using the Piazza...