RAMIREZ v. THE CITY OF NEWARK
2:11-cv-01150
D.N.J.Dec 21, 2012Background
- This is an indemnification action among the City of Newark, Essex County, and the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (ECPO) arising from injuries to Ramirez and Ruiz in Newark in 2009.
- Plaintiffs allege constitutional and tort claims related to their detention, treatment, and a later inmate assault while in ECCF custody.
- The City amended its complaint to add ECCF as a defendant in April 2011; the City then asserted a third-party indemnification claim against Essex County and ECPO in February 2012.
- The court previously denied Essex County’s motion to dismiss the indemnification claim related to § 1983 and granted dismissal as to ECCF under the NJ Tort Claims Act.
- ECPO moves to dismiss the City’s third-party complaint on grounds of prosecutorial immunity and NJTCA, while Essex County seeks (i) certification of the June 14, 2012 order for interlocutory appeal and (ii) dismissal of the third-party complaint against ECCF for service/amenability issues.
- The court grants ECPO’s motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial immunity and grants Essex County’s motion; it also dismisses ECCF for lack of service pending proving compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial immunity scope in indemnification action | Ramirez and Ruiz argue ECPO's actions were prosecutorial and not protected by immunity. | ECPO contends immunity bars claims arising from prosecutorial actions in indicting and prosecuting the case. | ECPO entitled to prosecutorial immunity; dismissal granted. |
| Certifying order for interlocutory appeal | Essex County seeks immediate appellate review of the June 14, 2012 order. | Essex County argues there is a controlling question of law with substantial disagreement and that immediate appeal would expedite resolution. | Certification denied; order not eligible for interlocutory appeal. |
| Service and amenability of ECCF | ECCF was named and should be subject to suit; service should be completed. | ECCF was not served and is not an entity amenable to suit; dismissal is appropriate absent proper service. | Complaint against ECCF dismissed for lack of service; amenability preserved pending service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; not mere possibility)
- Yarris v. Cnty. of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial immunity framework; function over identity)
- Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241 (3d Cir. 1994) (prosecutorial immunity limits to judicial/quasi-judicial actions)
- Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (prosecutorial immunity extended to quasi-judicial phases)