HENDERSON v. UNION COUNTY N.J.
2:14-cv-07708
D.N.J.Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit challenging criminal prosecution and related police/prosecutor/judge actions arising from a May 3, 2013 domestic-violence incident; a TRO had been entered May 4, 2013 and vacated by the Family Part on May 16, 2013.
- Plaintiff alleges prosecutors (Gareis, Boyd) pursued charges despite the Family Part dismissal, and that detectives/officers (Rivera, Howell, Tokarz) coerced or misled the grand jury, failed to preserve/call relevant PDVA/civil facts, or were derelict in duties.
- Plaintiff also alleges Family Part Judge Caulfield failed to provide documentation of jurisdiction on request.
- Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief (restraining order against retaliation) and was granted in forma pauperis status; the Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The Court dismissed claims against the Plainfield Police Department (not a suable entity) and Union County (no municipal policy/custom alleged) and dismissed Judge Caulfield (judicial immunity) and prosecutors Gareis and Boyd (absolute prosecutorial immunity).
- The malicious prosecution claims against Detective Rivera, Officer Howell, and Officer Tokarz were dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege that the underlying criminal proceeding terminated in Plaintiff’s favor (a required element).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal police department is a proper defendant | Plainfield PD liable for officers' conduct | PD not a separate legal entity from municipality | Dismissed with prejudice (PD not suable) |
| Whether Union County liable under § 1983 | County employed wrongdoers who prosecuted Plaintiff | No policy/custom alleged to impose municipal liability | Dismissed without prejudice (no policy/custom alleged) |
| Whether Judge Caulfield is liable for alleged failure to provide jurisdictional docs | Caulfield failed to provide documentation on request | Judicial acts are absolutely immune | Dismissed without prejudice (judicial immunity; allegations conclusory) |
| Whether prosecutors Gareis and Boyd are liable for pursuing indictment / failing to present exculpatory evidence | Prosecutors pursued malicious prosecution and withheld "actual facts" | Absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions in initiating/pursuing prosecutions | Dismissed with prejudice (absolute prosecutorial immunity) |
| Whether police officers/detective can be liable for malicious prosecution | Officers coerced grand jury, failed duties, influenced prosecution | Liability requires favorable termination of criminal proceeding; no such allegation | Malicious prosecution claims dismissed without prejudice (failure to allege favorable termination) |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (recognizing § 1983 liability requires state action and constitutional violation)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for initiating and trying a prosecution)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (prosecutorial immunity extends to certain supervisory functions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (immunity for prosecutors’ trial-preparation activities)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (malicious prosecution § 1983 claims barred unless underlying conviction/charge has been favorably terminated)
- Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (elements of § 1983 malicious prosecution claim and favorable-termination requirement)