FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE 1 et al v. CITY OF CAMDEN et al

Filing 126

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this Order, plaintiffs and defendants shall file letter briefs addressing the two issues raised by the Court and the impact of those issues on plaintiffs' claims; and it is further ORDERED that the pending motion for summary judgment 116 shall be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending the Court's consideration of these two issues. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/26/2013. (tf, ) Modified on 9/26/2013 (tf, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
LODGE 1, JOHN WILLIAMSON,
ANTHONY GALIAZZI, and CHARLES
J. HOLLAND,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL NO. 10-1502 (NLH)(AMD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

v.
CITY OF CAMDEN, SCOTT
THOMSON, ORLANDO CUEVAS, and
LIEUTENANT JOSEPH WYSOCKI,
Defendants.

Appearances:
GREGG L. ZEFF
DRAKE P. BEARDEN, JR.
ZEFF LAW FIRM, LLC
100 CENTURY PARKWAY
SUITE 305
MT. LAUREL, NJ 08054
On behalf of plaintiffs
JOHN C. EASTLACK, JR.
WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
THE LIBERTY VIEW BUILDING
457 HADDONFIELD ROAD, SUITE 310
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002
On behalf of defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2010, plaintiffs, Fraternal Order of
Police, Lodge 1, and John Williamson, Anthony Galiazzi, and Charles
J. Holland, Camden Police Officers, having filed a complaint
against defendants, the City of Camden, Scott Thomson, City of
Camden Police Chief, Orlando Cuevas, City of Camden Police

Inspector, and Joseph Wysocki, City of Camden Police Lieutenant;1
and
Plaintiffs claiming that defendants imposed, and continue to
impose, an unlawful quota policy on Camden City police officers,
and that the implementation of that policy, as well as the
ramifications of plaintiffs’ expression of their disagreement with
the policy, constitute violations of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181.2 (Quotas
for arrests or citations prohibited; use of numbers in law
enforcement officer evaluations), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq.
(Conscientious Employee Protection Act), and their First Amendment
and Due Process rights under the federal and New Jersey
constitutions;2 and
Plaintiffs seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary
relief, including punitive damages; and
On March 15, 2013, defendants having filed a motion for

1

Plaintiffs have brought their claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, as well as pursuant to the New Jersey constitution and
New Jersey state law. This Court has jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The complaint also named the State of New Jersey and the
former New Jersey Attorney General as defendants because from
2002 until January 2010, the State of New Jersey maintained
authority over the City of Camden. These defendants were
dismissed by stipulation of the parties on August 25, 2011.
2

Plaintiff Holland has also asserted a claim for a violation
of his rights under the federal and New Jersey Family Medical
Leave Acts.
2

summary judgment3 in their favor on all of plaintiffs’ claims
against them; and
On May 28, 2013, plaintiffs having filed their opposition to
defendants’ motion; and
The Court having reviewed the complaint, as well as the motion
briefs filed by the parties; and
The Court finding that the papers have raised two issues that
require further briefing by the parties before the Court may
consider the merits of defendants’ summary judgment motion; and
The first issue raised by plaintiffs’ claims regarding the
Camden City Police Department’s ongoing quota policy is the effect
on those claims by the May 1, 2013 disbanding of the Camden City
Police Department and the creation of the Camden County Metro
Police Department, particularly with regard to those claims seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief;4 and

3

Defendants’ former counsel filed the motion for summary
judgment on defendants’ behalf. Current counsel, who appeared in
the case on May 15, 2013, did not file a reply in further support
of that motion.
4

Plaintiffs’ claims are asserted against the City of Camden,
which is one-in-the-same as the former Camden City Police
Department. Boneberger v. Plymouth Township, 132 F.3d 20, 25 n.4
(3d Cir. 1997) (a municipality and its police department are a
single entity for the purposes of § 1983 liability). Plaintiffs’
claims against the individual defendants are in their individual
and official capacities, and the official capacity claims are
actually claims against the City of Camden. See Monell v. New
York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)
(official capacity suits “generally represent only another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an
agent”). Because, however, the Camden City Police Department is
3

The second issue raised by plaintiffs’ claims is whether the
New Jersey statute prohibiting the use of quotas for arrests and
citations, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181.2, provides plaintiffs with a
private cause of action to be able to personally vindicate alleged
violations of that statute;5 and

defunct, and the County of Camden now manages the policing of
Camden, it is unclear whether the quota policies complained about
by plaintiffs are still in effect. If the quota policies are
still in effect, it is also unclear whether a decision on the
legality of these quota programs in the current case between
plaintiffs and the City of Camden can bind the Camden County
Police Department, which is not a defendant in this action.
Although the “FAQs” on Camden County’s website indicate that
“Camden County would NOT be responsible for or cover in any way
any and all legal challenges and costs associated with prior
events attributable to the municipality that wishes to join a
County police department,” see The Camden County Police
Department: FAQs, available at
http://camdencountypd.org/wp-content/themes/ccpd/pdf/Police-FAQ.p
df, at page 3, the Court requires briefing by the parties to
clarify the impact and reach of plaintiffs’ claims because they
appear to transcend the May 1, 2013 transition.
5

N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181.2, in its entirety, provides:

a. A State, county or municipal police department or force
engaged in the enforcement of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes or
any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this title shall not
establish any quota for arrests or citations. The department or
force may, however, collect, analyze and apply information
concerning the number of arrests and citations in order to ensure
that a particular officer or group of officers does not violate
any applicable legal obligation.
b. The department or force shall not use the number of arrests or
citations issued by a law enforcement officer as the sole
criterion for promotion, demotion, dismissal, or the earning of
any benefit provided by the department or force. Any such
arrests or citations, and their ultimate dispositions, may be
considered in evaluating the overall performance of a law
enforcement officer.
4

The Court asking the parties to provide their perspective on
both of these issues;
Accordingly,
IT IS on this

26th

day of September , 2013,

ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this Order,
plaintiffs and defendants shall file letter briefs addressing the
two issues raised by the Court and the impact of those issues on
plaintiffs’ claims; and it is further
ORDERED that the pending motion for summary judgment [116]
shall be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending the Court’s consideration
of these two issues; and it is further
ORDERED that following the submission of the parties’
supplemental briefing, defendants may, via letter to the Court,
reactivate their current motion for summary judgment, or file a new
or supplemented motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs may
respond to in accordance with the Local Rules.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey

5