BRUNSON v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 40

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 7/12/18. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHIFFONE BRUNSON,

Docket No.: 17-cv-04577

Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges state and federal civil rights claims against
the State of New Jersey; the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (“ECPO”), Quovella M.
Spruill (“Spruill”) in her official and individual capacities, Robert D. Laurino (“Laurino”)
in his official and individual capacities, (collectively, the “ECPO Defendants”); the City
of East Orange, East Orange Police Chief William C. Robinson in his individual and
official capacities, Officer Green1 of the East Orange Police Department in her individual
and official capacities; Essex County, the Essex County Jail, Essex County Sheriff
Armando B. Fontoura; John Doe(s) 1-10, and ABC Entities 1-10.2
Now pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
filed by the State of New Jersey and the ECPO Defendants, including Defendants Spruill
and Laurino in both their individual and official capacities. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
(b)(6). Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion to Compel Disclosures under Rule 26. There was no
oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED and all claims against the ECPO Defendants and the State are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s discovery motion is DENIED. Claims against the other
Plaintiff has not yet been able to identify Officer Green’s full name. See Am. Compl. ¶ 5.
The Amended Complaint also names the East Orange Police Department as a defendant. ECF
No. 22. However, the parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of the East Orange Police
Department on November 17, 2018. ECF No. 18. The City of East Orange—not its police
department—remains a Defendant in this case. See Padilla v. Twp. Of Cherry Hill, 110 F. App’x
272, 278 (3d Cir. 2004) (explaining that a police department cannot be sued separately from the
municipality to which it belongs).
1
2

1

Defendants named above—including Essex County and the City of East Orange—remain
pending.
I.

BACKGROUND:

In 2015, Plaintiff Chiffone Brunson, a New Jersey resident, temporarily relocated
to St. Lucie County, Florida, to care for her ill father. Am. Compl. ¶ 25, ECF No. 22. On
June 23, 2015, a St. Lucie police officer executed a traffic stop on Plaintiff for failing to
stop at a red light.3 See Id. ¶ 38. Upon conducting a routine background check, the officer
discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for Plaintiff in East Orange, New Jersey. Id. ¶
39. The warrant based on Plaintiff’s suspected involvement in the 2015 robbery of a
grocery store in East Orange, which was captured on store surveillance video. Id. ¶¶ 30,
31. That video depicted a female with a tattoo on her upper left arm. Id.
On or about June 24, 2015, local authorities notified the Essex County Sheriff’s
Office of Plaintiff’s arrest. St. Lucie officers provided East Orange police with
photographs of a tattoo located on Plaintiff’s lower arm that depicted her daughters’
names and flowers. Id. ¶ 30. These photographs did not align with the appearance of the
suspect caught on video and thought to be Plaintiff. According to the Amended
Complaint, “[e]ven the most cursory review of the videotape obtained from the store’s
surveillance system would have revealed, based on a comparison of tattoos, that
[Plaintiff] did not perpetrate the crime.” Id. ¶ 31. Nevertheless, Defendants John Doe
Officer #1 and Officer Green provided the video and photographs to ECPO “to support
an indictment against [Plaintiff] as the perpetrator of the crime, despite . . . [knowledge]
that this evidence was, in fact, exculpatory.” Id. ¶ 32.4
Among the ECPO employees who reviewed the photographs and surveillance tape
were Defendants Laurino and Spruill. Defendant Laurino was Acting First Assistant
Prosecutor for Essex County. Spruill’s title was Temporary Acting Chief of Investigators
assigned to ECPO, responsible for, inter alia, “facilitating the overall extradition process
. . . and whose duties included personally reviewing files to ensure that all ECPO policies
and procedures regarding investigative support were complied with.” Id. ¶ 12.” Plaintiff
alleges that the ECPO Defendants “willfully failed to verify the identity of [Plaintiff] as
the correct suspect . . . .” Id. ¶ 35. On June 25, 2017, based on the tattoo photographs and
surveillance video, the ECPO Defendants initiated an extradition request in order to
prosecute Plaintiff back in New Jersey. Id. ¶ 45. According to Plaintiff, Assistant
3

The legality of the traffic stop is not at issue and is irrelevant to the motions pending.
The Amended Complaint also states that John Doe Sergeant or Lieutenant #2 was the
supervisor of John Doe Officer #1 and Officer Green, responsible for personally reading and
reviewing each and every police report and investigation and complaint prepared . . . for the
express purpose of ensuring accuracy . . . and that there was evidence and probable cause to
support an arrest.” Id. ¶ 33. However, the Court understands these individuals to be employed by
Defendant East Orange, which has not joined this motion to dismiss.
4

2

Prosecutor John Doe #5 “willfully failed to notify the judge who issued the extradition
order that the surveillance video did not depict [Plaintiff] as the perpetrator of the crime .
. . .” Id. ¶ 46.
On June 28, 2015, after four days in the custody of the St. Lucie County Sherriff’s
Office, id. ¶ 48, two unnamed members of the Essex County Sheriff’s Department
(Officers # 3 and #4) picked up Plaintiff and transported her by motor vehicle back to
New Jersey. Id. ¶ 50. The trip took several days, during which time Plaintiff was required
to eat and sleep in the vehicle. Id. ¶ 51.
On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Essex County Jail. Id. ¶ 52.
During Plaintiff’s incarceration, Assistant Prosecutor John Doe #5 attempted to extract a
guilty plea by informing Plaintiff’s Public Defender that video evidence in the State’s
possession showed Plaintiff committing the burglary, whereupon the Public Defender
advised Plaintiff to plead guilty. Id. ¶ 54. Plaintiff refused, and remained incarcerated for
over a month. Id. ¶ 55. She made a court appearance on August 17, 2017. Id. ¶ 62. Upon
reviewing the surveillance video, the judge dismissed all charges against Plaintiff. Id. She
had spent a total of 55 days in custody. Id. ¶ 63.
Plaintiff initially filed her complaint on June 21, 2017, against the ECPO
Defendants, the City of East Orange, the East Orange Police Department, Essex County,
Essex County Jail, Essex County Sherriff Armando B. Fontoura, Officer Green, Essex
County Chief of Police William C. Robinson, Essex County Prosecutor’s Office
(“ECPO”), Laurino, Spruill, and other unnamed or fictitious individuals and entities. ECF
No. 1. The parties then stipulated to dismissal of the East Orange Police Department.
ECF No. 18. Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on February 2, 2018. ECF No. 22. On
March 2, 2018, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) was
filed by the State of New Jersey, ECPO, and Laurino and Spruill, in both their official
and individual capacities. Plaintiff conceded to dismissal of the State in light of sovereign
immunity, ECF No. 18, but opposes dismissal of the ECPO Defendants. Plaintiff’s
opposition paper also includes a cross-motion to compel ECPO Defendants to comply
with certain Rule 26 disclosure requests. This Opinion addresses both the motion to
dismiss and Plaintiff’s Rule 26 motion.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint,
in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated. Hedges v.
United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In deciding a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), a court must take all allegations in the complaint as true and view them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975);

3

Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir.
1998).
Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, “a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the factual allegations
must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level, such that it
is “plausible on its face.” See id. at 570; see also Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc.,
542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). A claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). While “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement’ . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(2009).5
III.

DISCUSSION

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and
pendant jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Title 42, Section
1983 provides relief for the deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution and laws
by a “person” acting “under color of any [State] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1985 provides relief for conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights in three separate scenarios. See § 1985(c). Plaintiff asserts seven causes of
action against Defendants:
Count 1: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1981, & 1985 for deprivation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights, including those secured under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. U.S. Const. amend. IV, XIV;
Count 2: New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”), N.J. Const. art. I;
Count 3: Negligence;
Count 4: Abuse of Authority;
Count 5: Malicious Prosecution;
Count 6: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
Count 7: False Arrest and False Imprisonment.

5

References in the Amended Complaint to racial animus are conclusions without any factual
predicate. See Am. Compl. ¶ 16. (“The defendants were racially discriminatory in that [Plaintiff]
is African-American and exposed to selective and disparate treatment due to her race and the
greater perception that she was more likely to engage in criminal activity without any probable
cause to support same.”). Because these statements are conclusory and lack “factual
enhancement,” the Court will not consider them in its analysis of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.
4

The Amended Complaint is difficult to construe because it sometimes fails to
connect factual allegations to specific individuals and causes of action. The crux,
however, is that Defendants extradited, incarcerated, and prosecuted Plaintiff despite
possessing patently exculpatory evidence. Allegations of supervisory liability are
included as follows:
[ECPO Defendants] failed to properly supervise, train and exercise
oversight of the East Orange Police Department Officers and Detective,
including the development, promulgation, and implementation of policies,
procedures and standards relating to investigation of crimes, and to conduct
proper internal affairs investigations and to impose discipline on police
officers and detectives who perform improper criminal investigations and
ignore exculpatory evidence while acting under color of law and in
permitting and allowing plaintiff to be charged without probable cause.
Am. Compl. ¶ 33.
The ECPO Defendants, including Defendants Laurino and Spruill in their official
and individual capacities, move under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on the following grounds: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) the ECPO Defendants
are not “persons” vulnerable to suit under § 1983 or the NJCRA; (3) absolute and
qualified immunity; and (4) good faith immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act
(“TCA”); 59:3-3. Plaintiff concedes that the Eleventh Amendment bars all claims against
the State. See Const. am. XI. Accordingly, all federal and state claims against the State
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Alden v. Maine., 527 U.S. 706 (1999).
A.

Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity6

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const.
amend. XI. “Sovereign immunity extends to state agencies and state officers, ‘as long as
the state is the real party in interest.’” Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's
Office, 769 F.3d 850, 857 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fitchik v. N. J. Transit Rail
Operations, 873 F.2d 655, 659 (3d Cir. 1989)). “To determine whether the state is the
real party in interest, this Court considers three factors: (1) whether the money to pay for
the judgment would come from the state; (2) the status of the agency under state law; and
Applying sovereign immunity entails an analysis distinct but “closely parallel” to assessing
whether a defendant is a “person” vulnerable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harris v. Soto, No.
16-2551 (KM)(JBC), 2016 WL 7391037, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2016). “Where, as here, the
entity claiming immunity is determined to be an arm of the state, however, it is beyond dispute
that it is not a ‘person’ for § 1983 purposes.” Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F.3d 504, 519 (3d Cir.
2018)(citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)).
6

5

(3) what degree of autonomy the agency has.” Id. (citing Fitchik 873 F.2d, at 659.
Applying these factors, the Court finds that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits claims
against the ECPO Defendants, including Defendants Laurino and Spruill in their official
capacities.
The first Fitchik factor weighs in favor of immunity because the TCA indemnifies
a State employee for whom the Attorney General provides a defense. N.J.S.A. § 59:10-1.
Plaintiff argues that this obligation does not extend to prosecutors engaged in willful
misconduct. Opp. Br. at 12,13. It is true that the TCA does not require the Attorney
General to indemnify an employee who engages in willful misconduct or acts beyond the
scope of his or her employment. N.J.S.A. 59:10-2. See Murphy v. Middlesex Cty., No. 157102 (FLW) 2017 WL 6342154, at *4,5 (Dec. 12, 2017). In this case, however, the
Attorney General expressly “assumed responsibility for the defense and indemnification
of the ECPO Defendants.” Defs.’ Br. at 14. Damages awarded in this case would be
drawn from the State’s treasury. See Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 660.
The second Fitchik factor also favors granting the ECPO Defendants sovereign
immunity. Under New Jersey law, when county prosecutors and their subordinates
perform law enforcement and prosecutorial functions, “they act as agents of the State.”
Hyatt v. Cty. of Passaic, 340 F. App'x 833, 836 (3d Cir. 2009). The Amended Complaint
describes classic enforcement and prosecutorial actions, which, errant or not, fall within
ECPO’s role as an arm of the State. See id., 340 F. App'x at 836–37. In response, Plaintiff
characterizes ECPO’s failure to properly hire and discipline subordinates as “purely
administrative” actions. See Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491, 1505,06 (3d Cir. 1996). As
the Third Circuit has explained, however, “[t]raining and policy decisions that require
legal knowledge and discretion are related to prosecutorial functions and are unlike
administrative tasks concerning personnel.” Hyatt, 340 F. App'x at 836,37 (citations
omitted). “The administrative obligations at issue here are [] unlike administrative duties
concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of
physical facilities, and the like.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 344 (2009).
The third Fitchik factor—the degree of a prosecutor’s autonomy from the state—
also favors granting sovereign immunity. Under New Jersey statutory law:
Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General the interests of the State
will be furthered by so doing, the Attorney General may (1) supersede a
county prosecutor in any investigation, criminal action or proceeding, (2)
participate in any investigation, criminal action or proceeding, or (3) initiate
any investigation, criminal action or proceeding.
N.J.S.A. § 52:17B-107. Hence, the ECPO Defendants enjoy little, if any, autonomy from
the State.

6

Because application of the Fitchik factors shows that the “state is the real party in
interest,” the Court finds that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes ECPO Defendants—
including Defendants Laurino and Spruill, in their official capacities—from all claims.
All seven state and federal Claims against the ECPO Defendants are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will now assess suits brought against two of the ECPO
Defendants in their individual capacities.7
B. Suits against Defendants Laurino and Spruill in their Individual Capacities
State officials sued in their “individual capacities” are “persons” vulnerable to
suits under § 1983, and do not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31 (1991) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment
does not erect a barrier against suits to impose ‘individual and personal liability’ on state
officials under § 1983.”). See also Estate of Lagano, 769 F.3d at 857. Plaintiff argues that
Laurino (Acting First Assistant Prosecutor for Essex County) and Spruill (Temporary
Acting Chief of Investigators assigned to ECPO) are individually liable as
“policymakers” and “field supervisors” for violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
A.M. Luzerne Cty., 372 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 2004); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d
Cir. 1989). As described above, the Amended Complaint alleges that both Spruill and
Laurino were aware of exculpatory evidence and decided nonetheless to extradite and
prosecute Plaintiff for burglary, and further that “Laurino and Spruill maintained an
unofficial policy or practice in how to conduct investigations, obtain extradition, how to
proceed to evaluate probable cause and in failing to produce exculpatory evidence.” See
Pl.’s Br. 20. The Court finds that both are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
1. Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity
“Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal
prosecution.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269, (1993) (citing Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)). Under Imbler, courts apply absolute immunity not
according to official title, but rather to official conduct that is “functional[ly] tied to the
judicial process.” See id. at 277-78. Absolute immunity extends beyond formal
proceedings and includes “the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State
[which] involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart
from the courtroom.” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 272 (emphasis added). This includes
“professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police and appropriate
preparation for its presentation at trial . . . .” Id. at 273. (finding no absolute immunity
7

Plaintiff mischaracterizes her claims as Monell claims. Municipalities or local entities may be
held liable via § 1983 “when the alleged constitutional transgression implements or executes a
policy, regulation or decision officially adopted by the governing body or informally adopted by
custom.” Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966 (3d Cir. 1996) (citing Monell v. New York City
Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). The moving Defendants are state actors, however, and
were not acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy. Monell does not permit suits against
the ECPO Defendants.
7

because “[t]he conduct of a press conference does not involve the initiation of a
prosecution, the presentation of the state's case in court, or actions preparatory for these
functions.”). So long as the alleged actions themselves are functionally related to
prosecution, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence immunizes even gross prosecutorial
misconduct. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 489, 90 (1991).8
a. Defendant Robert D. Laurino
Plaintiff alleges that ECPO prosecutor Robert Laurino sought extradition and
prosecuted Plaintiff despite knowledge of exculpatory evidence. If true, that conduct,
while deeply troubling, is “preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution” and protected
absolutely by prosecutorial immunity. See Moore v. Middlesex Cty. Prosecutor’s Office,
503 F. App'x 108, 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431-32 n. 34) (“[T]he
decision to withhold such evidence from the defense while functioning as an advocate for
the state is protected by absolute immunity”); Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273 (absolute
immunity shields the “professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police”
when determining whether to pursue charges.). Attempts to “coerce Plaintiff to plead
guilty” were functionally prosecutorial, not investigative. Id. at 273. (“There is a
difference between the advocate's role in evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses
as he prepares for trial, on the one hand, and the detective's role in searching for the clues
and corroboration that might give him probable cause to recommend that a suspect be
arrested, on the other hand.”).
Further, initiating the extradition of Plaintiff from Florida to New Jersey was
“intimately associated with” ECPO’s effort to prosecute Plaintiff.9 See Dababnah v.
Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467, 472 (4th Cir. 2000) (“We agree that absolute immunity
attaches to [defendant’s] request for [plaintiff-appellee’s] extradition. Insuring [sic] that a
defendant is present both for trial and for punishment is critical to a prosecutor's
discharge of her duties.”). See also Pinaud v. Cty. of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1150 (2d Cir.
1995); (“If prosecutors are concerned with possible liability when they take the steps
necessary to make a defendant available for prosecution, the decision whether or not to
prosecute may be directly affected. And that is precisely the type of concern that absolute

In the context of this action, Plaintiff’s bald assertion that Defendant Spruill “performed purely
investigative duties,” Am. Compl. ¶ 47, is a legal conclusion that does not move the needle away
from dismissal under Rule 12. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.
9
One might distinguish between the legal decision to extradite, which is generally
“prosecutorial,” and the physical manner of extradition, which has “administrative” qualities.
The Amended Complaint states that“[t]he trip to New Jersey took several days . . . thereby
requiring Brunson to eat and sleep in the Essex County Sheriff Department vehicle.” Am.
Compl. ¶ 51. Plaintiff, however, does not incorporate these facts into any of its seven claims
against ECPO or Defendants Spruill or Laurino; accordingly, the facts do not factor into the
analysis of absolute prosecutorial immunity in this case.
8

8

immunity seeks to foreclose.”). The claims against Defendant Laurino in his individual
capacity are therefor DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. Defendant Quovella M. Spruill
Defendants argue that Spruill is “entitled to derivative absolute prosecutorial
immunity as the Amended Complaint alleges that she was performing investigative
activities at the behest of the prosecutor’s office.” Defs.’ Br. at 20 (emphasis added).
Imbler is not chiefly concerned with one’s title, but rather with actions “intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430. The
Third Circuit has explained:
An investigator directly employed by the district attorney to do a particular
investigative job related to the prosecution of an accused is not the
equivalent of the ordinary police officer, who is empowered by the state to
initiate discretionary acts depriving others of their rights and whose many
activities in the prevention of crime and enforcement of law need not be
related to the judicial process.
Black v. Bayer, 672 F.2d 309, 321 (3d Cir. 1982) abrogated on other grounds by D.R. by
L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364 (3d Cir. 1992).
Presumably, most of an investigator’s activity is functionally “investigatory.” In this
particular case, however, the allegations against Spruill are essentially identical to those
alleged against prosecutor Laurino, undertaken in the course of prosecution. Spruill only
became involved to assist ECPO in facilitating extradition and prosecution, well after a
warrant had been issued for Plaintiff’s arrest. The Amended Complaint does not allege
that Spruill (or her staff) investigated the crime prior to, or independently from, the
prosecutorial process. Accordingly, Spruill enjoys absolute immunity, and all claims
against her are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
C. Section 1981 provides no private cause of action
Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination under color of state law, but does not
provide a private cause of action. See McGovern v. City of Phil., 554 F.3d 114, 121 (3d
Cir. 2009) (“the express cause of action for damages created by § 1983 constitutes the
exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in § 1981 by state
governmental units.”) (quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, (1989)).
The Section 1981 claim is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
D. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to Compel Rule 26 Disclosures
In addition to opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff simultaneously
moves the Court to compel Defendants to make certain Rule 26 disclosures, including
production of the surveillance tape of the burglary and the identities of all “John
9

Doe/ABC” Defendants named in the Amended Complaint. Rule 26 disclosures become
due at or within 14 days of the parties’ scheduling conference. Rule 26(a)(1)(C).
Originally scheduled for March 27, 2018, the conference was canceled pending the
outcome of this dispositive motion. The motion is procedurally defective and therefore
DENIED.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is
GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s discovery motion is DENIED. All claims against the
State and the ECPO Defendants (including Defendants Laurino and Spruill in their
individual and official capacities) are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Claims remain pending against the non-moving Defendants, including the City of
East Orange, East Orange Police Chief William C. Robinson (in his individual and
official capacities), Officer Green of the East Orange Police Department (in her
individual and official capacities); Essex County, the Essex County Jail, and Essex
County Sheriff Armando B. Fontoura. An appropriate Order follows.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
July 12, 2018

10