WITT v. CITY OF VINELAND, 1:20-cv-14678

Background

On March 6, 2019 plaintiff was arrested by Vineland police and transferred to Cumberland County Jail where, according to the Third Amended Complaint, multiple Cumberland County correction officers pepper‑sprayed and violently beat him while he was restrained and compliant, causing a fractured orbital bone; some conduct was partially captured on surveillance video.
Plaintiff alleges prior complaints and prior similar incidents involving county correction officers, and he cited earlier civil cases involving alleged excessive force in the jail.
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, the New Jersey Constitution, and state tort law, naming officers and Cumberland County; Cumberland County moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
At the pleadings stage the Court accepted plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and treated him as a pretrial detainee, analyzing constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court denied dismissal of Monell claims based on an alleged custom of excessive force and failure to discipline/ supervise (failure to investigate), but dismissed without prejudice Monell claims based on formal policies and failure to train, and dismissed Monell failure‑to‑intervene claims without prejudice.
The Court also dismissed (with prejudice) the Fifth Amendment claim, dismissed intentional‑tort vicarious liability and punitive damages claims against the County, allowed negligence claims to proceed, and dismissed negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper constitutional framework for excessive force	Plaintiff alleges he was a pretrial detainee so Fourteenth Amendment (due process) / Kingsley standard applies	County contends plaintiff was a convicted/probationer and claims arise under the Eighth Amendment	Court accepts plaintiff’s allegation he was a pretrial detainee and analyzes under the Fourteenth Amendment (Kingsley/objective‑reasonableness)
Monell liability — custom of excessive force	Plaintiff alleges repeated similar incidents (his own prior complaints, Reid and Ewing matters), failure to investigate/discipline, and a code‑of‑silence as a municipal custom causing violations	County argues allegations are too vague and there was no formal finding of excessive force	Court finds allegations sufficiently plausible at pleadings stage to permit Monell claim based on custom and failure to discipline to proceed
Monell liability — formal policy or failure to train	Plaintiff alleges formal policies discouraging complaints and inadequate training/timeliness and recordkeeping	County says plaintiff fails to identify any actual adopted policy or specific training deficiency causally linked to the injury	Court dismisses Monell claims premised on formally adopted policy and failure to train without prejudice for lack of factual specificity about the policy/deficiency and causation
Monell liability — failure to intervene	Plaintiff alleges Officer Kelley watched and failed to intervene; seeks municipal liability for failure to intervene	County argues no pattern of non‑intervention or adopted policy discouraging intervention; Kelley was outnumbered	Court dismisses Monell failure‑to‑intervene claim without prejudice, finding no pleaded pattern or single‑incident basis showing municipal deliberate indifference
Fifth Amendment claim	Plaintiff asserted Fifth Amendment due process claim	County argues Fifth Amendment applies only to federal actors	Court dismisses Fifth Amendment claim with prejudice (state/local actors governed by Fourteenth Amendment)
New Jersey torts and punitive damages	Plaintiff seeks vicarious liability for intentional torts, negligent/supervisory claims, and punitive damages	County contends public entity not liable for willful/intentional employee misconduct and is immune from punitive damages; disputes scope of vicarious liability	Court dismisses vicarious liability for intentional torts and punitive damages; allows negligence and negligent supervision/training claims to proceed; dismisses negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring without prejudice for missing required particulars

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (pretrial detainee excessive force judged by objective‑reasonableness)
Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipal deliberate indifference and causation)
Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (failure to train liability requires deliberate indifference; narrow single‑incident exception)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure‑to‑train requires close relation between deficiency and injury)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (identify contours of constitutional right before deciding liability)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981) (municipal/pubic entity immunity from punitive damages)
A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cty. Juv. Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 2004) (failure to intervene and reasonable opportunity standard)
Est. of Roman v. City of Newark, 914 F.3d 789 (3d Cir. 2019) (widespread complaints not acted on can support municipal custom claim)