JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Trooper Jonathan Anthony's motion for summary judgment. [Docket Item 26.] In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Richard Wells contends that Trooper Anthony violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. During the course of a traffic stop and subsequent arrest on an outstanding warrant, Plaintiff alleges that Trooper Anthony used excessive force against him in applying handcuffs too tightly. Defendant's motion principally contends that video footage from Trooper Anthony's patrol car provides incontrovertible proof that Plaintiff never complained about handcuffs being too tight and that Plaintiff never displayed any sign of distress as a result of the handcuffs.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
On July 17, 2010, Plaintiff was stopped by Trooper Anthony while driving north on Interstate 295. (Pl. Statement of Material Facts ("SMF") [Docket Item 26-1] ¶ 2.) Trooper Anthony stopped Plaintiff for speeding. (
Plaintiff was instructed to exit his vehicle and Trooper Giacona escorted him to the front of the vehicle. (
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he "immediately began complaining to Trooper Anthony that the handcuffs were too tight, and were cutting off his circulation and causing severe pain." (
The drive from the scene of the traffic stop to the Willingboro Police Station was 14 minutes. (Trooper Anthony Patrol Log, Pl. Ex. E [Docket Item 28] at 3;
Plaintiff received medical care for pain to his wrists on July 26, 2010, less than ten days following the incident, by Dr. Roberto Diaz, who diagnosed Plaintiff with "compression injury of the right radial nerve." (Grossinger Note, Pl. Ex. G [Docket Item 28] at 1.) Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Grossinger on August 5, 2010, nearly two weeks following the incident, and Dr. Grossinger opined that, as a result of the handcuffs being applied too tightly on July 17, 2010, Plaintiff suffered from "traumatic tenonsynovitis of the wrists and hands, r/o radial nerve entrapment, r/o median nerve compression," with "diminished range of motion" and "loss of dexterity." (
Plaintiff provided three photographs in support of his claims, which show ligature-type markings. (Def. Ex G. [Docket Item 26-10.]) Plaintiff testified that these marks show the bRUISING CAUSED BY THE HANDCUFFS. (wELLS dEP. 90:15-97:5.) iN Plaintiff's statement to the Office of Professional Standards, he agreed that the ligature-type marks shown in the photographs could also have been caused by handcuffs that were too loose.
Plaintiff initiated this action on July 16, 2012, asserting a claim against Trooper Anthony for excessive force in violation of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, a claim against a fictitious patrol officer for bystander liability, and a claim against Superintendent Colonel Rick Fuentes for maintaining an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom of excessively tight handcuffing. [Docket Item 1.] Plaintiff sued Defendants in their individual and official capacities. Subsequently, Defendants Trooper Anthony and Superintendent Colonel Rick Fuentes filed a motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which Plaintiff did not oppose. [Docket Item 8.] By order entered November 28, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' motion, dismissing all claims again Superintendent Colonel Rick Fuentes and all claims against Trooper Anthony in his official capacity. [Docket Item 10.] On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting an excessive force claim against Trooper Anthony in his individual capacity under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.
On April 7, 2014, Defendant Anthony filed the instant motion for summary judgment [Docket Item 26], which Plaintiff opposed on April 28, 2014 [Docket Item 28.] Defendant filed a reply on May 13, 2014. [Docket Item 31.] The Court heard oral argument on Defendant Anthony's motion on July 22, 2014 and received supplemental letters from both counsel later the same day. [Docket Items 34 & 35.]
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."
Defendant argues that he is entitled for summary judgment because the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff never complained about the handcuffs being too tight and he never displayed any signs of distress as a result of the handcuffs. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff's claims under the New Jersey Constitution should be dismissed because such claims cannot be brought pursuant to § 1983.
The Court now addresses Defendant's principal argument that he cannot be liable for violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights because Plaintiff failed to voice any complaints about the handcuffs and never showed any sign of discomfort or distress as a result of the handcuffs.
Defendant contends that the video footage from Trooper Anthony's patrol car indisputably shows that Plaintiff did not complain that the handcuffs were too tight or display visible signs of distress after he was handcuffed. Plaintiff responds by noting genuine disputes of material fact in the record and emphasizing portions of Plaintiff's encounter with Trooper Anthony not captured by the video footage provided.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer in arresting or detaining a person.
The Court of Appeals has specifically recognized that a plaintiff who suffers serious injury as a result of "excessively tight" handcuffs when officers ignore complaints that the handcuffs are causing significant pain may establish that the officer's "use of force was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
In analyzing excessive force claims based on excessively tight handcuffs, courts in the District of New Jersey have considered "the intensity of the plaintiff's pain, the officer's awareness of the plaintiff's pain, whether the plaintiff asked to have the handcuffs removed and how long after those requests the handcuffs are removed, whether there were circumstances justifying a delay in removing the handcuffs, and the severity of the injury the plaintiff suffered."
After reviewing the evidence in the record, including video footage from Trooper Anthony's patrol car, the Court finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact which prevent summary judgment. Although Defendant contends, and Plaintiff admits, that Plaintiff cannot be heard on the video complaining about his handcuffs, the video does not cover significant portions of Plaintiff's interaction with Trooper Anthony, including the moment when Trooper Anthony first applied the handcuffs and the 14 minute drive from the scene of the traffic stop to the station. The drive to the station is particularly relevant because Plaintiff testified that he complained to Trooper Anthony about the tightness of the handcuffs four times during this period and Trooper Anthony eventually told Plaintiff that he would have to wait to loosen the handcuffs until they arrived at the station. Moreover, Plaintiff testified that Patrolman Burgess observed that Plaintiff's wrists were swollen upon his arrival at the station and warned that removing the handcuffs would cause Plaintiff pain.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff and Trooper Anthony can be heard discussing a variety of topics throughout the roughly 40 minutes of video footage, including the approximately 20-minute period during which Plaintiff was handcuffed. The Court also notes that Plaintiff is visibly upset regarding his arrest throughout the video, but there is no indication that he is in physical pain, let alone an outward display of pain as the result of excessively tight handcuffs. However, Plaintiff sought medical treatment less than one week following the incident and was ultimately diagnosed with "traumatic tenonsynovitis of the wrists and hands, r/o radial nerve entrapment, r/o median nerve compression," with "diminished range of motion" and "loss of dexterity" as a result of the handcuffs being applied too tightly on July 17, 2010.
While the evidence in the present case does not rise to the level of that in
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that there are genuine disputes of material fact which prevent entry of summary judgment. In particular, the Court finds that video footage from Trooper Anthony's patrol car fails to capture relevant portions of Plaintiff's encounter with Trooper Anthony during which Plaintiff testified that he complained that the handcuffs were excessively tight. However, in light of Plaintiff's consent, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the New Jersey Constitution. The § 1983 claim for excessive force in making an arrest will remain for trial. An accompanying Order will be entered.
(Mag. Judge Schneider's Standing Order in All Civil Cases [Docket Item 14] ¶ 8.) The Court will permit Plaintiff to rely on Dr. Grossinger's treatment notes and his opinion as to causation therein because it is undisputed that Plaintiff identified Dr. Grossinger as an expert in his initial disclosures and timely provided Defendant with a copy of Dr. Grossinger's treatment notes, which contain his opinion as to causation. Moreover, by letter dated January 31, 2014, within the amended deadline for expert discovery, Plaintiff again identified Dr. Grossinger as a treating physician and expert and provided Defendant with his curriculum vitae.
As such, this case is distinguishable from
