Witt v. City of Vineland

1

LOURENZO WITT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VINELAND, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-14678 (KMW) (MJS)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 30, 2024

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Hon Karen M. Williams United States District Judge.

This matter conies before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff filed a response to the motion (ECF No. 97), to which Defendants replied. (ECF No. 99.) For the following reasons Defendants motion for summary judgment shall be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The parties in this matter largely agree as to the background facts of this matter, Plaintiffs complaint in this case concerns a use of force incident which occurred while Plaintiff was being booked into the Cumberland County Jail by two Vineland police officers, Defendants Farmer and Morales on March 6, 2019.^[1] (See ECF No. 95-2 at 2; ECF No. 97-2 at 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff essentially contends that, while being turned over to the jail following his arrest on an outstanding warrant by Defendants, he was subjected to the use of excessive force by various members of the jail's staff, and that Defendants Farmer and Morales failed to intervene to end or prevent that use of excessive force. (Id.) The entire exchange in question was caught on video.^[2] (Id.)

The video evidence (contained in exhibits D-l and D-2 of Defendants' motion) of the incident in the County Jail in this matter reveals the following. After bringing Plaintiff into the jail, Defendants Farmer and Morales are standing with Plaintiff in a moderate size room, waiting for corrections officers of the jail to take custody of Plaintiff. During this time, Plaintiff voices complaints, casts insults at the officers, and behaves in a generally confrontational matter. A short scuffle occurs during which Plaintiff spits in the face of Defendant Morales.^[3] Farmer and Morales then move Plaintiff into the corner of the room and restrain him while awaiting corrections staff During this time, Plaintiff claims not to have spit on Morales, and headbutts an adjacent window several times while crying out as if to suggest he was being struck or attacked by the officers, but no such attack occurs. Finally, after several minutes, corrections staff arrive and Plaintiff is moved into the jail's vestibule, which is akin to a wide rectangular corridor, for the custody transfer to take place.

While being brought into this room, Plaintiff continues to use foul language and deny having spit on Morales. Corrections staff take Plaintiff to a wall with handprints emblazoned on it for the purposes of removing his restraints and his intake into the jail. Corrections officers hold Plaintiff at the wall and tell him to “chill out” and that they will not “play” with him. Plaintiff pushes himself away from the wall and turns from it several times, and is redirected and held to it by two corrections officers. Plaintiff then continues to argue with officers over whether he spit on Morales and refuses to answer questions from corrections officers. Lieutenant Russel of the county jail, with whom Plaintiff is clearly familiar given their conversation and his referring to Russel by his first name, instructs the moving Defendants to remove Plaintiffs restraints, and tells Plaintiff that if he does not comply he will be “dealt with severely.” Defendant Farmer removes Plaintiff s leg shackles with help from Morales while Plaintiff and Russel argue over whether Russel's warning was disrespectful. During this argument, Plaintiff on multiple occasions turns away from the wall he was instructed to face to continue arguing with Russel, requiring Morales and Farmer to change position to continue removing the leg restraints. Farmer finishes with the leg restraints while Russel and Farmer continue their exchange, stands, and steps away. Morales turns Plaintiff around from the wall and Farmer steps back up to Plaintiff so that they can begin to remove his handcuffs while the terse bickering between Plaintiff and Russel is ongoing.

Morales takes several steps back, and Farmer begins trying to undo the cuffs while two corrections officers hold Plaintiff in place. During this time, Plaintiff tells Russel to “punch [him] in [his] face” because he wants to be able to file a lawsuit. Plaintiff taunts Russel again, and Russel tells him to put each hand on his head once it is free of the cuffs while a third corrections officer steps in to help secure Plaintiff. Plaintiff is turned back to the wall and continues arguing with Russel about whether Russel will punch him if he doesn't listen to his commands. Farmer removes the restraint around Plaintiffs waist and continues the process of removing his handcuffs while Plaintiff again says that he “wishes” Russel would “punch on [him].” Farmer hands Morales the waist belt from the cuff set and returns to removing the cuffs. Plaintiff is again spun away from the wall and made to face Farmer. Russel again instructs Plaintiff to place his hands on top of his head once the cuffs are removed. Plaintiff then makes several vulgar comments to Russel in response. Farmer removes the cuff from one of Plaintiffs hands and Russel again issues the order, to which Plaintiff responds “F- you” to Russel. Russel steps forward, Plaintiff raises his hand toward the general area of his head, but pauses briefly without placing it on or behind his head.

At this point, time coded on the video as 3:46:01 a.m., another county jail corrections officer steps from behind Farmer and without warning pepper sprays Plaintiff in the face over the course of less than a second, reaching over Farmer's shoulder, and using the arm on his opposite side from Morales, who was standing several feet away from the deploying corrections officer. Russel then, at 3:46:03 a.m., grabs Plaintiff and instructs him to get on the ground, and pulls him down toward the ground while several other corrections officers move in to help restrain Plaintiff, while Farmer and Morales step back out of the corrections officers' way. At this time, Defendants Farmer and Morales begin speaking to one another, and it is not clear from the video whether either can actually see through the several officers what is happing to Plaintiff approximately eight to ten feet away on the floor. During the process of securing Plaintiff, one corrections officer quickly attempts to strike Plaintiff twice with his fist without any clear trigger at 3:46:16-18. Farmer and Morales do not appear to witness this portion of the incident as they are talking to one another.

Russel then steps towards Plaintiff, appearing to stomp on or kick his face in the process at 3:46:30, which Farmer and Morales do appear to witness. Russel leans down and tells Plaintiff to put his hands behind his back. Approximately two seconds later, Russel leans down as if to help restrain Plaintiff and then suddenly punches Plaintiff in the face, which Farmer and Morales also appear to witness. Officer Farmer steps slightly towards the group of men on the floor for a moment but is waved away by a corrections officer while Russel backs away and instructs corrections officers to handcuff Plaintiff.

Officers Farmer and Morales then step back, their line of sight to Plaintiff seemingly obscured by Russel and the other officers, and begin speaking to one another again. Over the course of several fairly calmer seconds, the officers place cuffs on Plaintiffs hands. Plaintiff is turned on his side, at which point blood drips from his face onto the floor, and Plaintiff states that he cannot breathe while officers lift him to his feet, telling him he can breathe as he is talking, Plaintiff then walks out of the room while restrained by three corrections officers. A nursing staff member then enters the scene and follows the officers leading Plaintiff away out of the room, Farmer and Morales remain in the room as the video ends, after being told to “hold tight” for a few minutes. Farmer and Morales thereafter left the jail.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 56, a court should grant a motion for summary judgment where the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Fed, R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of “identifying those portions of the pleadings depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A factual dispute is material “if it bears on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim,” and is genuine if “a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.” Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dis!., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). In deciding a motion for summary judgment a district court must “view the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” id., but must not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). “Where the i record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, [however,] there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsuhita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,587(1986).

Once the moving party has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party who must provide evidence sufficient to establish that a reasonable jury could find in the non-moving party's favor to warrant the denial of a summary judgment motion. Lawrence v. Nat'l Westminster Bank New Jersey, 98 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1996); Serodio v....