WILLIAMS v. HEBBON et al
Filing
62
OPINION and ORDER that the Motion to Dismiss [docket # 52 ] filed by Defendants Hebbon and Lacewell, which the Court has converted into a motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Hebbon and Lacewell; that all claims against Defendants Hebbon and Lacewell are DISMISSED; that the case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 9/12/2011. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
James WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 09-2236 (AET)
v.
Sean P. HEBBON, et al.,
OPINION & ORDER
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter has come before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss [docket # 52] filed by
Defendants Sean Hebbon and Jolanda Lacewell. The motion is unopposed. The Court has
decided the matter upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, without holding oral
argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are
granted.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff James Williams brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of
his constitutional rights arising from his arrest and prosecution in Somerset County in 2009 and
2010. Defendants Sean Hebbon and Jolanda Lacewell—officers involved in Plaintiff’s arrest—
have moved to dismiss the claims against them on the same grounds that the Court previously
dismissed the claims against the other co-defendants. The Court converted Defendants’ motion
to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(d)
1
so that the Court could consider various exhibits attached to the motions for summary judgment
filed by co-defendants. (Order 1, July 28, 2011) [58].
On April 6, 2009, police officers from Franklin Township responded to a report of a
burglary in progress at the Video Corporation of America. (Somerset County Defs.’ Mot. for
Summ. J. Ex. A) [37-3]. Upon arrival, an employee of the video store told the officers that he
had heard noises on the roof and that there was a ladder leaning against the building. (Id.) The
officers scaled the ladder and found Plaintiff James Williams and another man, Sanford
Williams, Jr., crouched on the roof. (Id.) The suspects were arrested and transported to police
headquarters. (Id.) On the roof, officers found a crow bar, a small axe, a saw, a sledge hammer,
and shingles that had been removed from the roof. (Id.) There was also a large hole in the roof.
(Id. Ex. B.) In the parking lot, the officers found a car with its front passenger windows
shattered and its radio forcibly removed. (Pl.’s Br. in Opp’n to Seiwert Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A,
Affidavit/Certification in Support of Probable Cause) [50-1].
As a result of the incident, Plaintiff was charged with several crimes. Initially, he was
charged with burglary and attempted burglary on April 9, 2009. A month later, the burglary
charge was administratively dismissed for insufficient evidence. (Somerset County Defs.’ Mot.
for Summ. J. Ex. E.) Plaintiff was also indicted by the Somerset County Grand Jury on charges
of attempted burglary and criminal mischief. (Id. Ex. C.) On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff and the
Prosecutor’s Office entered into a written plea agreement whereby Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the
attempted burglary charge and the criminal mischief charge. (Id. Ex. F.) Plaintiff, his attorney,
and the Assistant Prosecutor then went before the court to place the plea agreement on the
record, and Plaintiff admitted to the acts alleged, acknowledged that he understood the nature of
the plea agreement, and stated that he was pleading guilty voluntarily. (Id. at Ex. G.) Plaintiff
2
was sentenced to four years of incarceration on the attempted burglary charge and eighteen
months on the criminal mischief charge with the sentences to run concurrently. (Id. at Ex. H.)
Plaintiff filed this Complaint on October 13, 2009, alleging various claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. According to the Amended Complaint, Defendants involvement was as follows:
Defendant Hebbon, among other allegations, “falsified complaint against plaintiff . . . Hebbon
sworn [sic] under oath that plaintiff committed a burglary on said date that did not occur nor did
plaintiff commit.” (Am. Compl. 5) [8-1]; (see Somerset County Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. D,
Complaint Warrant) [37-3]. And Defendant Lacewell signed a “sworn affidavit in support of
probable cause or to establish cause [that] was fabricated and/or was untrue.” (Am. Compl. 13)
[8-1]; (see Pl.’s Br. in Opp’n to Seiwert Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A, Affidavit/Certification in
Support of Probable Cause) [50-1]. Plaintiff characterizes these allegations as “obstruction of
justice,” “official misconduct,” and “duplicity of charging.” (Am. Compl. 10.)
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court will
“view the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the
party opposing the motion.” Id.; Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276–77 (3d Cir. 2002). In
resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided
that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 251–
3
52 (1986). More specifically, the Court must grant summary judgment against any party “who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the movant’s motion is supported by facts, the party opposing
summary judgment “may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its
response must . . . set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(2). More than a mere “scintilla of evidence” supporting the non-moving party is required.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Properly applied, Rule 56 will “isolate and dispose of factually
unsupported claims or defenses” before those issues come to trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323–24.
B. Application
The claims against Defendants Hebbon and Lacewell are based on Plaintiff’s allegation
that the charges filed against him were false and that Defendants falsified documents to support
these charges. (See Pl.’s Br. in Opp’n to Seiwert Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A, Affidavit/
Certification in Support of Probable Cause) [50-1]; (Somerset County Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J.
Ex. D, Complaint Warrant) [37-3].
To succeed on his challenge to the sufficiency of an affidavit of probable cause, Plaintiff
must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the affiant knowingly and deliberately,
or with a reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements or omissions that created the
falsehood in applying for the warrant; and (2) that such statements or omissions are material, or
necessary, to the finding of probable cause. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 (1978);
Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
fail because, even drawing reasonable inferences in his favor, he has presented no evidence to
show that Defendants made any material false statements or omissions knowingly or with
4
reckless disregard to their truth or falsity. In fact, he has not even identified exactly what
misstatements Defendants are alleged to have made. Accordingly, we will grant summary
judgment in favor of Defendants and dismiss all claims against them.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS on this 12th day of September, 2011,
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [docket # 52] filed by Defendants Hebbon and
Lacewell, which the Court has converted into a motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
and it is
ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Hebbon and
Lacewell; and it is
ORDERED that all claims against Defendants Hebbon and Lacewell are DISMISSED;
and it is
ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.
/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
5
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?