CORRADI v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD et al

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk of the Court shall Administratively Terminate 71 Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's 75 Opposition pending the submission of supplemental briefing. It is further Ordered that within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall provide the entire record for motion to suppress. This case is Administratively Terminated for docket management purposes. Signed by Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 02/21/2020. (jmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LOUIS CORRADI,

Civil Action No. 16-5076 (FLW)

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD
et al.,
Defendants.

1. Pro se Plaintiff Louis Corradi is a convicted sex offender serving a term of Parole
Supervision for Life (“PSL”) under “Megan’s Law.” Defendants, Sergeant Kimberly Cavanaugh
and Parole Officer Michelle Rey (“Defendants”), are parole officers involved in Corradi’s parole
supervision. During a search of Corradi’s vehicle and his residence, Defendants found a gun and
various types of contraband, resulting in Plaintiff’s arrest and imprisonment. Corradi alleges that
the search and his resulting arrest and imprisonment violated his constitutional rights, and he
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 alleging, in relevant part, Fourth Amendment
claims for illegal search and seizure, false arrest, and false imprisonment.
2. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims,
arguing that they had reasonable suspicion to search Plaintiff’s residence and car and probable
cause to arrest him after discovering the gun and contraband. 1 See ECF No. 71-1, Defendants’
Moving Brief at 13-24.

1

Defendants have also argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
1

3. In opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has provided a
copy of a September 15, 2017 Order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County,
Law Division in which the Honorable Joseph L. Rea, J.S.C., granted Corradi’s motion to
suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search on April 1, 2015, and partially dismissed
Indictment # 15-09-1068-I. 2 The Indictment was subsequently dismissed on the state’s
application on October 11, 2017. See ECF No. 75-1 at 14-17, Exhibit D to Plaintiff’s Opposition.
4. Defendants do not include these facts in their L. Civ. R. 56.1 Statement of Material Facts
or address in their moving brief the legal consequences of the state court’s determination on the
Fourth Amendment claims in this matter. Nor have they provided the Court with the hearing
transcripts and/or written decision from the motion to suppress. In their Reply Brief, Defendants
acknowledge that the state court judge determined at the suppression hearing that Defendants
lacked probable cause to search Corradi’s vehicle and residence; they argue, however, that they
are free to relitigate the Fourth Amendment issues because they, as individual Defendants, were
not in privity with the parties to the prior proceeding and did not have a full and fair opportunity
to litigate the Fourth Amendment issues. 3 See ECF No. 85, Defendants’ Reply at 5. To address

2

The Order indicates that the Indictment survived to the extent that it pertained to evidence not
seized during the April 1, 2015 search.
3

Defendants’ arguments implicate the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Under the doctrine of
collateral estoppel, “once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of
action involving a party to the prior litigation.” Montana v. U.S., 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979); see
also Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 105 (1980)(doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to § 1983
suits against police officers to recover for Fourth Amendment violations). As explained by the
Supreme Court in Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 313-14 (1983), “28 U.S.C. § 1738 generally
requires ‘federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever the courts of
the State from which the judgments emerged would do so.’” Id. (quoting Allen, 449 U.S. at 96).
Here, the Court would look to New Jersey law on collateral estoppel and federal decisions
construing New Jersey law to determine whether Defendants are precluded from relitigating the
Fourth Amendment violations in this action.
2

the legal effect of the state court’s determinations on the Fourth Amendment claims in this
action, the Court requires the relevant record from the motion to suppress and adequate briefing
by the parties.
5. At this time, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to administratively terminate
Defendants’ summary judgment motion and direct Defendants to supplement the record and
submit supplemental briefing. 4 Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall
provide the entire record for motion to suppress for Indictment # 15-09-1068-I, including
transcripts for the hearing(s) and any written decisions by the state court in connection with the
motion to suppress. Defendants shall also submit supplemental briefing addressing the substance
of the state court’s Fourth Amendment determinations and the issue of collateral estoppel.
Defendants shall serve the supplemental briefing and record on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff may
submit a response to Defendants’ supplemental briefing within 30 days of his receipt of the
same.
IT IS THEREFORE, on this 21st day of February 2020,
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE
Defendants’ summary judgment motion at ECF No. 71 and Plaintiff’s Opposition at ECF No. 75
pending the submission of supplemental briefing; and it is further
ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall provide the
entire record for motion to suppress in connection with Indictment # 15-09-1068-I, including
transcripts for the hearing(s) and any written decisions by the state court; Defendants shall also
submit supplemental briefing addressing the substance of the state court’s Fourth Amendment

4

The Court will also direct the Clerk of the Court to administratively terminate Plaintiff’s
Opposition, which appears to be docketed as a motion.
3

determinations and the issue of collateral estoppel; Defendants shall serve the supplemental
briefing and the supplemental record on Plaintiff at the address on file; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit a response to Defendants’ supplemental briefing
within 30 days of his receipt of the supplemental briefing and exhibits; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE
this matter for docket management purposes; the Court will direct the matter to be reopened and
deem the motion for summary judgment refiled when the record is complete; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Memorandum and Order
to Plaintiff at the address on file.

s/Freda L. Wolfson
Freda L. Wolfson
U.S. Chief District Judge

4