LURCH v. KAISER, 1:22-cv-05054-CPO-AMD

Pro se plaintiff Robert Derek Lurch sued Sgt. Mohammed Kaiser (Atlantic City PD), Atlantic County, BJ’s Dollar Express, and two BJ’s employees for events in November 2021.
Alleged facts: BJ’s employees refused service, used racial slurs, attacked Lurch with a rock after accusing him of attempted robbery; Lurch defended himself, left the store, and dropped unpurchased shirts; employees called police; Lurch fled and was arrested moments later.
Lurch admits he had an outstanding New York warrant but alleges the arresting officer did not run his name on-scene and effectuated a warrantless arrest.
Procedural posture: Court granted IFP and conducted sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); complaint asserts (1) § 1983 false arrest claims against Kaiser and Atlantic County and (2) state-law assault and battery claims against BJ’s and its employees.
Court held the § 1983 claim fails because probable cause existed (BJ’s employees’ tip + Lurch’s immediate flight), Monell claim against the County was not plausibly pled, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lurch stated a § 1983 false arrest claim	Kaiser arrested Lurch without probable cause	Officer had probable cause based on employees' 911 report and Lurch's flight	Dismissed: probable cause existed and § 1983 claim fails
Whether Atlantic County is liable under Monell	County liable as Kaiser’s employer	Municipal liability requires an unconstitutional policy/custom and a policy nexus	Dismissed: no constitutional violation pled and no policy alleged
Whether federal jurisdiction exists	Federal § 1983 claim supplies jurisdiction	No diversity pleaded; only federal claim is § 1983	Federal claim dismissed; no federal jurisdiction remains
Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims	Plaintiff seeks to proceed on common-law claims here	Court should decline after federal claims are dismissed	Court declines § 1367 jurisdiction and dismisses state claims without prejudice

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; factual plausibility required)
Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2000) (Fourth Amendment bars arrests without probable cause)
Merkle v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. 2000) (probable cause exists when facts would lead a reasonable person to believe an offense was committed)
United States v. Laville, 480 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) (telephoned tip plus unprovoked flight can establish probable cause)
Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 1995) (definition of probable cause in arrest context)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (officer need only have reason to believe an offense was committed to arrest)
Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 1994) (evidence insufficient for conviction may still support lawful arrest)
Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
Reitz v. County of Bucks, 125 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 1997) (Monell pleading requirements explained)
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (federal courts generally dismiss state-law claims when federal claims are dismissed)