Malik v. Hannah
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69564
D.N.J.2011Background
- Camden police officers executed an arrest warrant for Stanley Crump at Malik's home in Camden, entering the house with guns drawn around 5:00 a.m. on March 28, 2003.
- Crump was identified, arrested, and restrained on the ground floor; officers then proceeded upstairs after hearing movement on the second floor.
- Officers entered Malik's bedroom, restrained him, and kicked him three times; Malik sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital where he received treatment and later lost work time.
- Malik filed an internal affairs complaint; the IA investigation consisted of a single unsworn statement by Sgt. Sosinavage and did not involve a formal, recorded inquiry of the officers' conduct.
- Plaintiff contends Camden had a pattern or custom of tolerating excessive force, supported by multiple prior complaints against officers and weak internal controls; the City failed to provide a responsive Rule 56.1 statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Malik's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the upstairs search and seizure | Malik asserts unconstitutional search/seizure in his bedroom during the arrest. | Search was a Buie protective sweep tied to the Crump arrest. | Buie did not authorize the upstairs search; excessive force found regardless of sweep validity. |
| Whether the use of force against Malik was excessive under the Fourth Amendment | Officers kicked Malik after restraining him without provocation. | Dispute over force but offers no admissible evidence to counter Plaintiff’s claim. | Force used was excessive; unconstitutional. |
| Whether Camden's alleged policy or custom caused the constitutional violation under Monell | Evidence shows a policy/custom of ignoring complaints and tolerating abuse by officers; City was moving force behind injury. | No contested evidence presented to show a policy or custom in place at the time. | Yes; Monell policy/custom established, City liable. |
| Whether the evidence supports Monell liability through a moving force theory given training and control failures | Pattern of inaction and numerous prior complaints indicate deliberate indifference by policymakers. | Defense did not present admissible evidence to rebut the pattern. | Uncontested evidence demonstrates moving-force causation; liability established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom, not respondeat superior)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (deliberate choice by final policymaker creates liability)
- Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1997) (custom may have the force of law; moving-force standard)
- Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2003) (defines policy vs. custom for municipal liability)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive-force analysis factors for reasonableness)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (protective sweeps limited to areas adjoining place of arrest with articulable suspicion)
- Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (definition of policy in municipal liability analysis)