Case Document 107 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1767 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CHAMBERS OF CLARKSON S. FISHER FEDERAL MICHAEL A. SHIPP BUILDING U.S. COURTHOUSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 402 EAST STATE STREET TRENTON, NJ. 08608 609-989-2009 NOT FOR PUBLICATION December LL, 2018 LETTER OPINION ORDER VIA CMIECF All counsel of record Re: Estate of Tamara Wilson-Seidle, by and through Kirsten Seidle, as Administratrix of the Estate, et aI. v. Neptune Township, 61 (11. Civil Action No. 17-4428 (MAS) (LI-1G) Dear Counsel: This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Neptune Township, Neptune Township Police Department, James M. Hunt, Jr., Michael Bascom, Robert Adams, and Howard O?Neil?s (collectively, the ?Neptune Defendants?) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 87); Defendant Marshawn Love?s (?Love?) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 89); Defendants Monmouth County, Gregory J. Schweers, Jacquelyn F. Seely, Richard E. Incremona, Karen Clayton, Kristin Aras, Stephanie Migliaccio, Kurt Gibson, the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Of?ce, and Prosecutor ChristOpher Gramiccioni?s (collectively, the ?Monmouth County Defendants?) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 90); and the City of Asbury Park, Deputy Chief David Kelso, Former Police Chief Anthony Salerno, and Police Of?cers Ahmed Lawson, Carl Christie, James Crawford, and Timothy Griswold?s (collectively, the ?Asbury Park Defendants?) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 91, 92). Plaintiffs Kirsten Seidle, as administratrix of the estate of Tamara Wilson-Seidle, Kirsten Seidle, individually, T.S., Philip Seidle, Jr., John Seidle, Christopher Seidle, Monica Seidle, Dorothy Seidle, M.S., Philip Seidle, SS, and Estate of Tamara Wilson- Seidle (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) opposed the Neptune Defendants, the Monmouth County Defendants, the Asbury Park Defendants, and Love?s (collectively, ?Defendants?) Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 98, 99, 100.) Defendants replied. (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 105, 106.) The Court has considered the parties? submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants? Motions to Dismiss are granted. Plaintiffs? arguments opposing Love?s Motion to Dismiss are included in their Opposition to the Asbury Park Defendant?s Motion to Dismiss. (See Pls.? Opp?n to Asbury Park Defs.? Mot. to Dismiss the Second Am. Compl. I, ECF No. 99.) Case Document 107 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1768 1. Legal Standard ?Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires . . . ?a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,? in order to ?give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.?? Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the ?defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been presented.? Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). A district court conducts a three-part analysis when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure See Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 201 I). ?First, the court must ?tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.?? Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). Second, the court must review ?the complaint to strike conclusory allegations.? Id. The court must accept as true all of the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations and ?construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.? Fowler v. UMPC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In doing so, however. the court is free to ignore legal conclusions or factually unsupported accusations that merely state Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Finally, the court must determine whether ?the facts alleged in the complaint are suf?cient to show that the plaintiff has a ?plausible claim for relief.?? Fowler, 578 F.3d at 21 1 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (?Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hypertechical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions?). II. Discussion The facts of this case are known to the parties and will not be repeated here. On April 19, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs? First Amended Complaint, ?nding that Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (See Apr. 19, 2018 Op. 4-5, ECF No 76.) The Court found that ?[r]ather than setting forth the allegations in a systematic and appropriate way, Plaintiffs have elected to group plead the various Defendants in this case.? (Id. at 5 (internal quotations and citation omitted).) Thus, because the Court ?had dif?culty discerning which claims were brought against which entities or individuals and the factual basis for each claim,? the Court granted Defendants? Motions to Dismiss. (Id. at 4.) The Court ?nds Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint suffers from the same ?aws as the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint again, mainly group pleads Defendants without applying speci?c facts to speci?c actors. Although Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint now includes additional counts and subheadings, Plaintiffs continue to consolidate their claims against Defendants, which not only creates confusion, but eliminates Plaintiffs? ability to allege suf?ciently speci?c facts to demonstrate personal involvement?a hallmark requirement for section 1983 claims. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (?Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to. . . [section] 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-of?cial defendant, through the of?cial?s own individual actions, has violated the Case Document 107 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1769 Constitution?); see also Grande v. Borough, No. 12-1968, 2013 WL 2933794, at *8 (D.N.J. June 13, 2013) (quoting Walsi?er v. Borough of Belmar, 262 F. App?x 421, 425 (3d Cir. 2008); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (?An individual defendant ?must have had personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing in order to be liable under [section] 1983 because individual liability cannot be predicated solely on the Operation of respondeat superior? . . . . Allegations against supervisory defendants, however, must be made with ?appropriate Moreover, Plaintiffs appear to con?ate their individual liability claims and Mariel!2 claims, and fail to allege with suf?cient particularity the conduct of each Defendant associated with those claims. Thus, the Court again has dif?culty discerning precisely which legal theories Plaintiffs are alleging, against which Defendants, and the facts attendant to those claims. If Plaintiffs wish to raise failure to train, failure to supervise, failure to intervene, or failure to protect claims (or any claim or combination thereof), Plaintiffs must clearly articulate those claims and plead suf?cient facts to put Defendants on notice of the claims against them. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In so doing, Plaintiffs may not rely solely on conclusory allegations, and the Court reminds Plaintiffs that although it is required to ?accept as true all of the allegations contained in [their] complaint,? it is not required to accept ?[t]hreadbare recitals of a cause of action?s elements.? Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court, therefore, remains unable to discern Plaintiffs? claims, and Plaintiffs? insertion of subheadings and additional counts fails to cure the de?ciencies in their pleadings. The Court reiterates its prior instruction that Plaintiffs must ?clearly explain the ?who, what, when, and attendant to their legal theories, and emphasizes Plaintiffs must apply those facts to each Defendant. (Apr. 19, 2018 0p. 8.) Plaintiffs should also be cognizant that the Court may consider any documents Plaintiffs explicitly rely upon in their Complaint. See In Re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig, 14 F.3d 1410, 1426(3d Cir. 1997) (holding a district court may consider any ?document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint . . . without converting the motion to dismiss into one for Finally, Plaintiffs should also be mindful of the fact that the Court previously dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs? claims against the Monmouth County Prosecutor?s Of?ce and Prosecutor Gramiccioni in their of?cial capacities and in connection with their law enforcement investigatory functions. The Court, accordingly, dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint. The Court grants Plaintiffs one ?nal opportunity to cure the de?ciencies in their federal claims. Based on the foregoing, and for other good cause shown, IT IS on this A day of December 2018 ORDERED that: l. Defendants? Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 87, 89, 90, 92, 91) are GRANTED. 3 Moriell v. N. Y.C. Dep 't ofSoc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). .Case Document 107 Filed 12/11/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1770 [a Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may ?le a Third Amended Complaint within thirty days of this order. If Plaintiffs fail to timely ?le a Third Amended Complaint, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice. MICHAEL AJEHIPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE