JUTROWSKI v. TOWNSHIP OF RIVERDALE
2:13-cv-07351
D.N.J.Apr 17, 2017Background
- On June 23, 2010 Emil Jutrowski, while intoxicated, struck another vehicle and stopped against a guardrail on Route 287; he sustained a facial/eye laceration.
- Riverdale PD officers (Roemmele and Sgt. Biro) and New Jersey State Troopers (Heimbach, Franchino, and others) responded; some officers had dashcams but Riverdale produced no dashcam footage for Biro’s vehicle; the State produced Heimbach’s dashcam which did not capture the kick.
- After EMS evaluated Jutrowski, he exited via the passenger side, staggered toward an ambulance, and Trooper Franchino attempted to restrain him; a takedown occurred and Jutrowski was brought to the ground during a struggle to handcuff him.
- Jutrowski alleges that, once on the ground, an unidentified officer kicked him in the face causing significant injury; he cannot identify which officer or whether the kicker was a trooper or Riverdale officer.
- Procedural: Jutrowski sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force), Monell/failure-to-train claims, state tort claims (assault & battery), and conspiracy; defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment to all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Excessive force under § 1983 — who kicked him? | Jutrowski: a reasonable jury can infer an officer kicked him and liability can attach even if he cannot identify the specific officer. | Defendants: plaintiff cannot identify the perpetrator; without identification no individual liability. | Court: Granted summary judgment — no § 1983 liability because plaintiff failed to identify which officer committed the kick and did not plead failure-to-intervene. |
| 2) Spoliation / adverse inference for missing Riverdale dashcam | Jutrowski: Biro’s dashcam should have recorded; adverse inference that Riverdale destroyed favorable evidence. | Riverdale: plaintiff offered insufficient proof that a recording actually existed or was preserved; no proper follow-up discovery. | Court: Denied adverse inference — plaintiff failed to show the recording’s existence or that spoliation occurred. |
| 3) Monell / failure-to-train (official-capacity claims) | Jutrowski: municipal/state supervision/training deficient; state kept a disciplined trooper on patrol. | Defendants: Monell liability applies to municipalities, not the State; plaintiff provided no facts showing a training policy or deliberate indifference. | Court: Granted summary judgment — Monell claim dismissed as to State and Riverdale for lack of a policy/custom and, as to State, because state entities are not § 1983 "persons." |
| 4) State torts (assault & battery) and conspiracy | Jutrowski: factual disputes about identity should be resolved by a jury; conspiracy inferred from reports and actions. | Defendants: Intentional torts preclude vicarious liability of the public entity under NJTCA; plaintiff cannot identify the individual tortfeasor or show an agreement for conspiracy. | Court: Granted summary judgment — vicarious claims against entities barred by NJTCA; individual tort claims fail for lack of identification; conspiracy claims unsupported by evidence of an agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party opposing summary judgment must present specific evidence creating genuine issue)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (state and state officials sued in official capacity are not § 1983 "persons")
- Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241 (inferences and credibility at summary judgment)