FINNEMEN v. MCCRINK et al
Filing
12
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/7/15. (js)
[Dkt. No. 8]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
NASIR FINNEMEN,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 15-5795 (RMB/JS)
OPINION
v.
SGT. MICHAEL BEACH; PTL.
MICHAEL SCHAEFFER,
Defendants.
BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff Nasir Finnemen (the
“Plaintiff”) initiated this civil action against Judge Krisden
McCrink of the Camden County Municipal Court, Judge Richard
Wells of the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, and Public Defender William Stopper. [Dkt. Ent. 1-3 (the
“Complaint”).] In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 31,
2015, this Court dismissed the claims against those defendants
and permitted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint
to more clearly state a cause of action, which had been alleged
vaguely, against two then-unnamed police officers who were
accused of attacking Plaintiff. [Dkt. No. 2.]
On September 16,
2015, Plaintiff amended his complaint to more clearly lay out
his claims against those officers—Sgt. Michael Beach (“Sgt.
1
Beach”) and Patrolman Michael Schaeffer (“Officer Schaeffer”).
[Dkt. No. 8 (“Am. Compl.”).]
Because Plaintiff proceeds in
forma pauperis, this Court must screen his amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.
Background
Plaintiff alleges that on the evening of July 17, 2014
Officer Schaeffer used excessive force in taking Plaintiff—a
disabled person—to the ground.
(Am. Compl. at 1, 3.)
Plaintiff
also claims that Officer Schaeffer, after taking Plaintiff to
the ground, “put his knee on my neck and was grabbing my head
off the grown with his hands.”
(Id. at 3)
He further alleges
that Sgt. Michael Beach punched him in the ribs while he was on
the ground.
(Id.)
As a result of this injury, Plaintiff alleges he suffered
pain in the right side of his neck, crepitus, a cervical spine
sprain, a contusion on his ribs, right and left wrist swelling,
pain to his face, and swelling in and left shoulder.
4.)
(Id. at
In support of these allegations, Plaintiff attaches
physical therapy and hospital records which show that Plaintiff
was the subject of two different attacks and has been receiving
treatment for the after-effects.
(Am. Compl. Ex. at 40.)
Specifically, the records indicate that Plaintiff was attacked
2
on June 29, 2014 while near a gas station.1
16-21, 40.)
(Am. Compl. Ex. at
The medical records also discuss the July 17, 2014
attack that is the subject of this litigation and describe it in
a manner consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations.
II.
(Id.)
Standard for Sua Sponte Dismissal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must
preliminarily screen in forma pauperis filings, and must dismiss
any filing that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a
complaint contain:
(1)
[A] short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support;
(2)
[A] short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3)
[A] demand for the relief sought, which may include
relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.
“[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's
entitlement to relief. A complaint has to ‘show’ such an
entitlement with its facts." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 311 (3d Cir. 2009). However, in screening a complaint to
This attack does not appear to involve any of the defendants in
this case.
1
3
verify whether it meets this standard, this Court is mindful of
the requirement that pro se pleadings must be construed
liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. Ed 652 (1972).
III. Analysis
A court’s initial task is to “tak[e] note of the elements
[Plaintiff] must plead” in order to state a claim of liability
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
U.S. 662, 675 (2009).
See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
Section 1983 of Title 28 of the United
States Code provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory
. . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen
of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To recover under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show two
elements: (1) a person deprived him or caused him to be deprived
of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, and (2) the deprivation was done under color of state
law.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
This Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations as attempting
to state an excessive force in executing an arrest in violation
of the Fourth Amendment and Section 1983.
4
To establish a claim
for excessive force as an unreasonable seizure, “a plaintiff
must show that: (a) a seizure occurred; and (b) that seizure was
unreasonable.”
El v. Wehling, 2015 WL 1877667, at *8 (D.N.J.
Apr. 23, 2015) (citing Rivas v. City of Passaic, 365 F.3d 188,
198 (3d Cir. 2004)); see also Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
395 (1989) (“[A]ll claims that law enforcement officers have
used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest,
investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should
be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness'
standard . . . .”); Watson v. Oldroyd, Civ. A. No. 07-3175, 2007
WL 2264906, at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2007);
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is a disabled person, he
was punched in the ribs while being arrested, and had his neck
kneeled upon while Officer Schaeffer pulled back on his head.
Plaintiff alleges that these injuries required him to seek
medical treatment and undergo physical therapy.
Such
allegations, construed liberally, are sufficient to permit this
claim to proceed.
See Watson, 2007 WL 2264906, at *4
(“Plaintiff’s allegation that he was beaten severely enough to
require hospital treatment is sufficient to permit [a fourth
amendment excessive force] claim to proceed.”)
IV.
Conclusion
5
For the reasons above, the Amended Complaint shall be filed
and the action shall be permitted to proceed.
Consistent with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), process shall be issued and served by the
officers of the Court, provided sufficient information is
provided by Plaintiff to effectuate that service.
DATED: December 7, 2015
/s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?