COWLES v. CITY OF ELIZABETH, N.J. et al

Filing 53

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 5/20/14. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 2:13-cv-03222 (WJM)

ROGER E. COWLES,
Plaintiff,

OPINION
v.
CITY OF ELIZABETH, N.J., a municipal
corporation, POLICE DEPARTMENT
FIREARMS LICENSING EMPLOYEE
LARON MURRAY in his individual capacity,
FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD P.
SIMON, in his individual capacity.
Defendants.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Roger Cowles’s motion for
sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is DENIED.
Cowles filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against several defendants, including the City
of Elizabeth (“Elizabeth”), alleging that his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated in connection with the termination of his gun permit application. The
Court dismissed claims against Elizabeth’s mayor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c), and the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the additional
defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
The undisputed facts establish that Cowles applied for a gun permit with the City
of Elizabeth. As part of his application, Cowles listed the names of two references. After
those references failed to contact the Elizabeth Police Department, Cowles’s application
was terminated without prejudice. Cowles takes the position that his references never
contacted the Elizabeth Police Department because they never received any inquiries
from the Elizabeth Police Department.
In the instant motion for sanctions, Cowles takes issue with the following two
statements that Defendants make in their reply brief to the motion for summary judgment.
First, Defendants state: “[Cowles] incorrectly asserts that even without the input from his
two references, he was entitled to have his application submitted to the Chief of Police
for approval or denial, and that the termination of his application without prejudice to his
right to reapply due to their lack of response is unconstitutional.” ECF No. 46 at 3.
1

Second, Defendants state that Adler v. Livak, 308 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 2000)
“rejects plaintiff’s groundless contention that the statute required his application to be
submitted to the chief of police for grant or denial regardless of whether the application is
complete.” Id. at 5. Cowles takes the position that these statements are sanctionable
under Rule 11 because he “never asserted in any complaint or Court filing that he was
entitled to have his application submitted to the Chief of Police for approval or denial
without the references letters required by statute or his application incomplete in any
respect.” ECF No. 47-1 at 3.
Rule 11 sanctions are proper “only in the exceptional circumstances where a claim
or motion is patently unmeritorious or frivolous.” Watson v. City of Salem, 934 F. Supp.
643, 662 (D.N.J. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “Sanctions are imposed
only in those rare instances where the evident frivolousness of a claim or motion amounts
to an abuse of the legal system.” Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc., No. 9-5203, 2011 WL
1134454, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Cowles’s arguments for sanctions lack merit. To begin with, Cowles argues that,
contrary to Defendants’ representation, he never said his application should have gone to
the Chief of Police for an approval or denial. But one of Cowles’s main arguments in
opposition to summary judgment was that his application should have been approved or
denied, rather than terminated. ECF No. 45 at 35-36. Next, Cowles argues that
Defendants misrepresent the holding of Adler. Even if the Court were to agree that
Defendants misread the holding of Adler, the Court cannot agree that Defendants’
reading was “patently unmeritorious or frivolous.” Goldberg, 2011 WL 1134454, at *2.
Accordingly, the Court will DENY Cowles’s Rule 11 motion. An appropriate order
follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: May 20, 2014

2