BROWN v. WARDEN OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL
1:19-cv-21965
| D.N.J. | Apr 20, 2020Background
- Plaintiff David Brown, arrested May 2018 on second-degree aggravated assault charges, was held pretrial in Cumberland County Jail; charges were later dropped and he was released.
- Brown alleges he was housed in a high-custody tier with violent defendants, was assaulted by multiple inmates while corrections officers watched, encouraged the attack, and did not intervene; he was hospitalized.
- Brown filed a § 1983 complaint (proceeding in forma pauperis) asserting false arrest/false imprisonment and Fourteenth Amendment claims (failure to protect and failure to intervene); he requested counsel.
- The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and permitted the Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect and failure-to-intervene claims to proceed against John Doe corrections officers.
- The Court dismissed Brown’s false arrest/false imprisonment claims without prejudice for failure to plead absence of probable cause; claims against Warden Richard Smith and the named Paulsboro officers were dismissed without prejudice.
- The Court denied Brown’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice and instructed Brown to identify the John Doe officers (via amendment or subpoena) so the U.S. Marshals can effect service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / false imprisonment | Arrest was illegal; charges later dropped so arrest lacked probable cause | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing absence of probable cause; dismissal of charges alone insufficient | Dismissed without prejudice; Brown may amend to plead facts supporting lack of probable cause |
| Failure to protect (pretrial detainee, Fourteenth Amendment) | Officers directed/encouraged inmates to assault him and stood by for entertainment | (Implied) Officers had no deliberate indifference or did not create/face a substantial risk | Allowed to proceed against John Doe corrections officers as plausible deliberate-indifference claim |
| Failure to intervene | Multiple officers were present and failed to stop the unprovoked attack | (Implied) Officers lacked realistic/actual opportunity to intervene | Allowed to proceed against John Doe officers; presence permits reasonable inference of opportunity to intervene |
| Supervisory liability (Warden Smith) | Warden is responsible for subordinate officers’ actions | Supervisor liability cannot rest on respondeat superior; must plead policy, participation, or acquiescence | Claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts showing policy/participation/knowledge |
| Appointment of counsel | Brown requests counsel due to credibility issues and alleged injuries | Court: factors (Tabron) do not favor appointment now; case not unusually complex; discovery likely limited | Motion denied without prejudice; Brown may renew if circumstances change |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (pleading must state facially plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; no labels and conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading framework)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) (failure-to-protect deliberate-indifference standard)
- Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 2002) (officer liability for failure to intervene where realistic opportunity existed)
- James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements for false arrest under Fourth Amendment)
- Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 1995) (definition of probable cause to arrest)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (factors for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2010) (supervisory § 1983 liability standards)