LIGGON v. CLEMENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/16/2014. (tf, n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ELIZABETH LIGGON,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 14-3192 (JBS/AMD)

v.
CLEMENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants.

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Elizabeth Liggon brings this action pro se and in
forma pauperis, alleging that Defendants Sergeant Robert Worrick
and the Clementon Police Department discriminated against her or
her granddaughter on the basis of race. Because Plaintiff fails
to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Court will dismiss the Amended
Complaint with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
1.

The Court draws the facts of this case from the

Amended Complaint and accepts them as true for the purposes of
this motion. Plaintiff alleges that her granddaughter, Brandi
Liggon, drove her to the hospital to treat a severe stomach ache
on or about March 15, 2014. While driving home from the
hospital, the granddaughter was involved in a motor vehicle

accident when she turned left at the intersection of Route 30
and Gibbsboro Road and was hit by an oncoming vehicle. (Am.
Compl. [Docket Item 4] at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that the other
driver apologized for the accident, saying, “I am sorry I did
not see you.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that, while she
remained bed-ridden, Defendant Clementon Police Department gave
her son the “run around” when he tried to obtain a copy of the
accident report for insurance purposes. (Id. at 1.) When
Plaintiff finally obtained the report, she discovered that “the
accident report did not reflect what [the granddaughter] said
occurred.” (Id. at 1-2.) The Amended Complaint does not explain
how Plaintiff’s account of the accident and the police’s account
differs, but in the original Complaint, Plaintiff pleaded that
the oncoming vehicle was traveling on the right-hand lane, not
the left-hand lane, as stated in the police report. Plaintiff
attributes any discrepancy to racial discrimination, because her
granddaughter is African-American and the other driver is white.
(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff then called Sergeant Worrick and,
according to Plaintiff, “[t]he sergeant agreed to correct” the
report, but added that the change was immaterial because “the
driver going straight has the right of way over the person
making a left hand turn.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that the
sergeant “was very nasty on the phone . . . .” (Id.)

2 

2.

On June 2, 2014, when the Court granted Plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court screened the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and dismissed all
claims without prejudice. The Court held that Plaintiff lacked
standing and failed to state a claim, because she did not assert
that she was injured by the alleged falsity of the police report
and because she did not assert facts from which a reasonable
jury could infer that Sergeant Worrick or the Clementon Police
Department violated her Equal Protection rights.1 The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to attempt to cure the deficiencies by
proposing an Amended Complaint.
3.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint adds a paragraph

explaining why she has standing to bring this suit:
The Plaintiff believes she has standing because she is
the person being sued. The Police Officer’s Racist
behavior towards her granddaughter is causing the
Plaintiff to be sued. The Police Officers submitting a
FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT IS CAUSING THE PLAINTIFF TO BE
SUED! (See attachments)[.]
(Id. at 2.) The attached document is a letter to Plaintiff from
a subrogation specialist from Esurance Insurance Co. of New
Jersey, demanding that Plaintiff pay $1,341.34, the amount of
damage caused by the accident in excess of the amount covered by
insurance. [Docket Item 4 at 5.] The letter also asserts that
1

The Court will not repeat its summary of the applicable law
here. The Court hereby incorporates its previous discussion of
the law in the previous Memorandum Opinion. [Docket Item at 1-2,
4-5.]
3 

“[o]ur investigation has determined that the liability for the
accident rests with you.” [Id.]
4.

Plaintiff also attaches a one-page written statement

by her granddaughter, labeled as an affidavit. Brandi Liggon
swears that she
came to a pause at the center of the intersection to
get in position to turn after the oncoming traffic was
clear to complete the left turn. All oncoming traffic
had clear[ed] for the moment so I began to finish my
turn and in the middle of the turn I was hit with much
force on the passenger side of the car making the
airbags eject.
[Id.] She states that when the police arrived and asked her what
happened, she said: “I was making a left turn and I was hit and
I am ok.” [Id.]
5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court will screen

the Amended Complaint and will dismiss any claim that the Court
determines “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(articulating the pleading standard).
6.

As a preliminary matter, this Court makes no

determination of fault for the underlying accident in dispute.
The Court expresses no opinion as to the accuracy or credibility
of Plaintiff’s evidence, including the police report. If
Plaintiff is covered by a New Jersey auto insurance policy, the
language of that policy and New Jersey law will govern what
4 

rights Plaintiff has to dispute issues of liability and damages
for the accident.
7.

The Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim

on which relief may be granted. The newly pleaded facts, rather
than supporting Plaintiff’s claim, only reasonably support the
conclusion that the police report reflected what Brandi Liggon
told Sergeant Worrick. Plaintiff’s granddaughter asserts that
she told the police that she was turning left and was hit by an
oncoming car as she was completing her turn. The police report,
attached to the original Complaint but not attached to the
Amended Complaint, accordingly states: “Vehicle 2 [the Liggon
vehicle] was turning left from eastbound Rt. 30 onto northbound
Gibbsboro Rd. The vehicles collided in the intersection.”
[Docket Item 1 at 5.] Although the police report depicts the
oncoming vehicle as traveling on the inside lane of Route 30,
and Plaintiff asserts (in the original Complaint) that the
oncoming car was traveling in the right-hand lane, Plaintiff
does not explain the significance of such a distinction.
8.

Furthermore, it may not be reasonably inferred that

the lane discrepancy in the report caused Plaintiff’s injury.
New Jersey motor vehicle laws state that a “driver of a vehicle
within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield
to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is
within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an
5 

immediate hazard,” without mentioning lanes of traffic. N.J.S.A.
39:4-90. Thus, the law requires the turning driver to yield to
any approaching vehicle that poses an immediate hazard. Although
Brandi Liggon states she yielded appropriately to oncoming
traffic, the Amended Complaint offers no explanation for how an
oncoming car suddenly appeared in the intersection or could have
crashed into the granddaughter if, indeed, she had a clear view
of the oncoming traffic and reasonably determined it was safe to
turn. The Court is bound to consider only the facts contained in
the Amended Complaint and reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom. Based on the limited facts pleaded and asserted
in Brandi Liggon’s statement, a reasonable inference to draw is
that Brandi Liggon somehow failed to appreciate the immediate
hazard of an approaching vehicle or did not have a clear view of
the intersection when she initiated the turn or exercised bad
judgment in making the turn. No facts pleaded in the Amended
Complaint suggest any other scenario. The Amended Complaint
therefore fails to allege a plausible claim of an Equal
Protection Clause violation, because it fails to identify how
the report intentionally misrepresents the accident based upon
racial considerations.
9.

Plaintiff’s theory of her granddaughter’s non-

negligence appears to hinge on the allegation that the oncoming
driver was at fault, because that driver told Brandi Liggon, “I
6 

am sorry I did not see you.” (Am. Compl. at 3.) However, neither
Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint nor her granddaughter in her
written statement asserts how the oncoming car appeared in the
intersection without the granddaughter having seen it. Brandi
Liggon does not assert that she explained an alternate scenario
to the police, which Sergeant Worrick disregarded because of her
race. Her statement asserts that she told the police that she
was turning and was struck by the oncoming vehicle. No civil
rights action lies merely because Sergeant Worrick’s report
reflects that statement. Again, the question of fault is not for
this Court to adjudicate.
10.

Even assuming that the oncoming driver had been at

fault and should have yielded to Brandi Liggon’s vehicle,
Plaintiff pleads no facts from which it may be reasonably
inferred that racial animus motivated any of Sergeant Worrick’s
actions. The police report itself does not assign blame for the
accident. The report contains exactly what Brandi Liggon now
swears she told the police: “I was making a left turn and I was
hit and I am ok.” [Docket Item 4 at 6.] Plaintiff even pleads
that “[t]he sergeant agreed to correct” the report, although
Plaintiff does not specify what he agreed to correct or why.2

2

Plaintiff accuses the Court of “illegally confer[ring] with the
Defendants,” because the prior Memorandum Opinion construed
Plaintiff’s statement that “[t]he sergeant agreed to correct it”
to mean that he agreed to correct the report to reflect the
7 

(Am. Compl. at 2.) The Amended Complaint provides no basis for
finding that either Sergeant Worrick or the Clementon Police
Department violated Plaintiff’s civil rights by discriminating
against her on the basis of race.
11.

The Civil Rights Act does not give rise to a cause of

action as to the accuracy of a witness statement in a motor
vehicle case. Plaintiff’s rights to a determination of liability
for the happening of her granddaughter’s accident and damages
caused thereby are preserved for an appropriate state forum, and
this Court expresses no opinion on such issues. The Court will
dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. An accompanying
Order will be entered.

June 16, 2014
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

error identified by Plaintiff or her granddaughter. No one has
conferred with any party in this case or obtained information
beyond what Plaintiff herself has supplied in her submissions.
Plaintiff’s unfounded accusation in her Amended Complaint
implies that the Court’s inference was in error, but Plaintiff
does not further explain Worrick’s agreement to correct the
report or suggest what else such an agreement could mean, and no
other plausible meaning occurs to this Court.
8