CASTRO v. ATLANTIC COUNTY

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: July 21, 2020
• Docket: 1:15-cv-02041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL CASTRO, 1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER v.

ATLANTIC COUNTY, ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, MULLICA TOWNSHIP, et al.,

Defendants.

APPEARANCES: DOUGLAS L. CODY CODY & CODY, ESQS. 653 WHITE HORSE PIKE HAMMONTON, NJ 08037

MARTIN P. DUFFEY COZEN AND O'CONNOR LIBERTY VIEW BLDG. 457 HADDONFIELD RD SUITE 300 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002

On behalf of Plaintiff

JAMES T. DUGAN ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW 1333 ATLANTIC AVENUE 8TH FLOOR ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401

On behalf of Atlantic County Defendants

ROBERT J. MCGUIRE STEPHEN RALPH TUCKER BRETT JOSEPH HAROLDSON NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 116 TRENTON, NJ 08625

On behalf of State of New Jersey Defendants

THOMAS B. REYNOLDS REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C. 750 ROUTE 73 SOUTH SUITE 202A MARLTON, NJ 08053

On behalf of Mullica Township Defendants

HILLMAN, District Judge WHEREAS, this matter concerns constitutional and state law claims by Plaintiff arising out of his arrests and grand jury indictments for murder and other charges, all of which were ultimately dismissed; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019, the Mullica Township Defendants and the State of New Jersey Defendants filed motions for summary judgment [157, 159]; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint [161], and on December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint [162]; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, Defendant Joseph Rauch, a detective for the Atlantic County Prosecutors Office, who had been dismissed as a defendant on September 11, 2017 pursuant to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint [64], filed his answer [163] to the third amended complaint, which renamed him as a defendant; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, Rauch filed a motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims against him in Plaintiff’s

third amended complaint [183], which motion is currently pending; but WHEREAS, the motions for summary judgment by the Mullica Hill Defendants and the other State of New Jersey Defendants relating to Plaintiff’s claims against them advanced in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint are still pending, but these defendants have not filed any response to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint; and WHEREAS, it appears that the filing of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint moots the Mullica Hill and State of New Jersey Defendants’ motions relative to the second amended complaint, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hospital, 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d

Cir. 2002) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of a lawsuit.”); but WHEREAS, the Court recognizes that the substance of the Mullica Hill and State of New Jersey Defendants’ motions may not have changed substantively as a result of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint1;

1 The Court has not independently compared the 229-page third amended complaint with the 219-page second amended complaint, THEREFORE, IT IS on this 21st day of July , 2020 ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment by the

Mullica Hill Defendants [157] and the State of New Jersey Defendants [159] concerning Plaintiff’s claims in his second amended complaint be, and the same hereby are, DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further ORDERED that, within 15 days, these Defendants may (1) file their answers to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, or (2) file a letter on the docket stating that they seek summary judgment in their favor on the claims against them in Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, and that they rely upon their prior submissions, and if Defendants choose this option, Defendants shall indicate whether and how any claims in Plaintiff’s third amended complaint affect their requests for

relief, or (3) file new motions for summary judgment relating to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint2; and it is finally

but it appears from the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which motion was considered by and granted by the Magistrate Judge, the main difference between the two complaints is the renaming of Rauch as a defendant. The Court leaves it to the parties to indicate whether Rauch’s addition as a defendant, or any other change in the third amended complaint, affects their arguments presented in their summary judgment motions. 2 The Court recognizes that a party may file a motion for summary judgment in response to a complaint rather than file an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (“Unless a different time is set by ORDERED that after Defendants have complied with the Court’s Order, Plaintiff shall respond similarly with regard to his oppositions to Defendants’ summary judgment motions.3

s/ Noel L. Hillman At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.”). The Court leaves it to Defendants’ discretion on how they wish to proceed, including the option of not seeking summary judgment at this time. It does not appear that Defendant Atlantic County, which is named in the third amended complaint, has filed an answer or otherwise responded to the third amended complaint. 3 This Order does not impact Defendant Rauch’s motion for summary judgment, which has just concluded briefing, as he filed an answer to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint and then filed his summary judgment motion relative to the third amended complaint.