EPIFAN v. ROMAN, 3:11-cv-02591

On July 10, 2009, MPAA investigators identified Timothy Epifan as a suspected movie-pirater; Manville and Somerset County prosecutors' officers went to arrest him as he exited a theater.
Epifan ran from officers in the theater parking lot; a collision occurred between Epifan and Sgt. Francisco Roman’s unmarked police vehicle. Epifan alleges Roman intentionally struck and then dragged him, causing serious leg injuries; Roman contends Epifan ran into the car and any contact was accidental.
Epifan later pled guilty to pirating, resisting arrest, and hindering prosecution; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, conspiracy, failure-to-intervene, Monell/failure-to-train) and state tort claims (assault, battery, negligence), naming numerous municipal and county defendants.
Several defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiff opposed only as to Sgt. Roman, Sgt. Paterno, Lt. Crater, Officer Granahan, and Det. Whipple. The court granted summary judgment for many defendants and dismissed several claims for lack of opposing proof or pleading defects.
The court found genuine factual disputes only as to whether Sgt. Roman intentionally struck and/or dragged Epifan (excessive force under the Fourth Amendment) and therefore denied summary judgment as to those § 1983 excessive-force claims and the state assault/battery claims against Roman; other federal claims (conspiracy, failure-to-intervene) were rejected or dismissed as to the non-Roman officers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
§1983 conspiracy to cover up misconduct	Officers conspired to falsify reports and hide the collision, depriving Epifan of rights	No meeting-of-the-minds or prior agreement; alleged cover-up alone is insufficient	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to show specific agreement or how any cover-up caused constitutional injury
Failure to intervene	Officers present (Paterno, Crater, Granahan) should have prevented Roman’s use of force	They lacked prior knowledge and reasonable opportunity to intervene; incident unfolded in seconds	Dismissed: no realistic opportunity to intervene; some officers did not witness the collision
Excessive force / qualified immunity (Sgt. Roman)	Roman intentionally struck and dragged Epifan with vehicle — unconstitutional seizure/excessive force	Collision was accidental; Roman decelerated and intended to stop; qualified immunity shields him	Denied as to Roman: genuine dispute of material fact whether Roman acted intentionally precludes summary judgment; qualified immunity not resolved because factual disputes remain
State-law assault & battery (Roman)	Roman’s intentional strike/dragging supports common-law assault and battery	Pursuit and good-faith immunities under NJ Tort Claims Act apply unless willful misconduct shown	Denied as to Roman: factual dispute over willfulness prevents immunity at summary judgment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue and credibility at summary judgment)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (Fourth Amendment addresses deliberate seizures, not accidental consequences)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (flexible qualified immunity framework)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity prongs)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can preclude plaintiff’s version when it "utterly discredits" it)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (limits §1983 claims that would imply invalidity of convictions)
Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (failure-to-intervene liability requires realistic opportunity to act)