GUADALUPE v. STAFFORD TOWNSHIP et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 9/30/2016. (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL GUADALUPE,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-613 (MAS) (TJB)

v.

STAFFORD TOWNSHIP, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants.

SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Stafford Township and Police Chief
Joseph Giberson's (collectively, the "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
17.) Plaintiff Michael Guadalupe ("Plaintiff') opposed Defendants' motion (ECF No. 23) and
Defendants replied (ECF No. 24).
Plaintiff filed his two-count Complaint alleging violations of Fourteenth-Amendment
procedural and substantive due process rights. (Compl. ,, 91-121, ECF No. 1.) Both counts are
based on the alleged unfair evaluation of Plaintiff for promotion to the rank of lieutenant in the
Stafford Township Police Department. (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 7-16, ECF No. 23-3.) In support of his
procedural due process claim, Plaintiff argues that he possesses a "legitimate expectation of
entitlement that [Defendants'] promotional process would[:] (1) be fair, transparent, and unbiased,
and (2) would afford [him] the rights set out in the promotional policy." (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff
further argues that his property interest arises from Stafford Township Resolutions (Defs.' Ex. F,
ECF No. 17-9) and N.J.S.A. 40A:14-129. (See Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 21-22.) Finally, in support of his

substantive due process claim, Plaintiff argues that a violation occurred because "the exam was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." (Id. at 33-34.)

InMrazekv. Stafford Township, No. 13-1091 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2016), and Smith v. Mcvey,

No. 14-5945 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2016) (collectively, the "Consolidated Decision"), the Honorable
Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J., analyzed cases involving similar procedural and substantive due
process claims. The Court finds Judge Wolfson's reasoning persuasive and adopts it for purposes
of this decision. In the Consolidated Decision, Judge Wolfson found that neither the Stafford
Township Resolutions nor N.J.S.A. 40A:l4-129 gives rise to a "property interest." Consolidated
Decision at 15. Judge Wolfson, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims.
Id.

Similarly, Judge Wolfson reasoned that substantive due process claims require "property

interests" that are "fundamental" under the United States Constitution. Id. at 22. Judge Wolfson
accordingly determined that there was "no basis [upon which] to find that the right[ s] [claimed by
plaintiffs] are in fact 'fundamental."' Id.
For the reasons set forth above, and other good cause shown, the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be
entered.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3ottt

Dated: September_, 2016

2