ABDUL-AHAD v. ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
2:20-cv-15602
D.N.J.Apr 6, 2022Background
- On Sept. 26, 2018, Paul O. Braswell was a passenger in a Newark vehicle that plainclothes law-enforcement officers approached; the driver attempted to flee and struck other cars and a tree.
- Officers shot into the vehicle, discharging 72 bullets; Braswell was struck and later died. Plaintiffs allege Braswell was unarmed and did not fire at officers.
- Plaintiffs allege officers failed to provide or timely summon medical aid for hours after the shooting.
- Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting: (I) excessive force, (II) false arrest/false imprisonment, (III) unreasonable seizure, (IV) Monell municipal-liability, and (V) failure to provide timely medical care. Defendants moved to partially dismiss.
- The Court granted the Essex County Sheriff’s Department (ECSD) motion as to Counts I, II, III, and V and as to punitive damages against ECSD; the Court denied motions by the Individual County Defendants and by Sgt. Pereira and Det. Yunque.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ECSD municipal liability & punitive damages | ECSD accountable via policies/practices alleged in Monell claim (Count IV); Counts I, II, III, V target individuals | ECSD cannot be held vicariously liable under §1983 or NJCRA; public entity immune from punitive damages | ECSD: Counts I, II, III, V dismissed as to ECSD; punitive damages against ECSD dismissed |
| Excessive force — personal involvement of individual officers | Plaintiffs allege each named officer (plus John Does) approached and fired into the vehicle (72 bullets) | Defendants say pleadings lack specificity to show which officers fired and rely on exculpatory records | Court finds allegations plausible and sufficient at pleading stage; motions denied as to excessive force against individuals |
| Qualified immunity for Pereira and Yunque | Plaintiffs allege constitutional violation; factual disputes preclude resolution now | Defendants assert force was reasonable and invoke qualified immunity, citing outside documents | Denied — qualified immunity not established on face of complaint; factual record needed |
| False arrest / unreasonable seizure | Seizure occurred when officers shot into vehicle and detained Braswell; complaint focuses on shooting | Defendants contend they had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle (relying on incident reports) | Denied — whether stop had reasonable suspicion is irrelevant to these counts as pled; claims survive |
| Failure to provide timely medical care | Plaintiffs allege officers shot into vehicle then failed to provide or summon aid, showing deliberate indifference to serious medical need | Defendants argue injuries were not obviously serious or officer safety justified delay; rely on incident reports | Denied — allegations that 72 bullets were fired make serious need plausible and plead deliberate indifference; court will not consider outside incident report at motion-to-dismiss stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658 (municipality liable only for policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force claims analyzed under the Fourth Amendment)
- Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (plaintiff's testimony tying multiple defendants to assault can suffice to show personal involvement)
- Jutrowski v. Township of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280 (plaintiff must produce evidence of each defendant's personal involvement at summary judgment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-prong framework; courts may address prongs in either order)