Opinion ID: 3039383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants Pine Belt and Kidd

Text: Martin’s claims against Pine Belt and Kidd are based on the vehicle loan agreement between Pine Belt and the Lakewood Police Department set forth in a contract dated April 5, 1989 (the “Contract”). Martin alleges that Pine Belt loaned the vehicles to the Department, including the unmarked vehicle used during the events at issue, knowing that the police were “performing unreasonable, arbitrary and capacious [sic] stops based on race in the black community,” and that Kidd allowed the Lakewood Police Department to borrow and use unregistered motor vehicles. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Pine Belt and Kidd because neither acted “under color of state law.” “Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen’s rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994) (quotations omitted) (citing Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4 (1980)). “Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting ‘under color’ of law for purposes of § 1983 actions.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980) (citing Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970)). However, such private persons must prove that they were “willful participant[s] in joint action with the State or its agents.” Id. at 27; see also Adickes, 398 U.S. at 152 (plaintiff entitled to relief under 1983 against private party if she can prove that private 4 party and police officer “reached an understanding” to cause her arrest on impermissible grounds). The “inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the . . . entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974). A plaintiff can establish such a nexus by alleging and proving the elements of a civil conspiracy between a state and private actor to violate an individual’s rights. Melo v. Hafer, 912 F.2d 628, 638 n.11 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Adickes, 398 U.S. at 152). Martin fails to provide either direct or circumstantial evidence of such a conspiracy. Martin contends that the joint participation or “nexus” requirement is met because Pine Belt loans vehicles to the Municipal Defendants with “full knowledge” that they are violating the Constitution by engaging in racial profiling. He alleges that the contract between the Municipal Defendants and Pine Belt constitutes evidence of a conspiracy or “formal arrangement” to engage in a “joint action plan . . . to allow unregistered vehicles to be used by undercover police officer [sic] in law enforcement.” (Pl’s Opp’n at ¶ 9.) He further claims that the indemnification provision in the contract is evidence of Pine Belt’s knowledge that they might be implicated in a lawsuit against the Municipal Defendants.1 Martin also submits that Pine Belt and the Municipal Defendants are 1 Paragraph 10 of the Contract provides that “[t]he Township shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, Pine Bel [sic] Chevrolet, Co., Inc., from any and all claims, judgments or expenses including counsel fees, arising from the usuage [sic] of all vehicles whic [sic] are the subject of this Agreement.” (Def’s Motion, Exh. A, ¶ 10.) 5 represented by the same counsel and must therefore be considered “intertwined” for purposes of finding state action. Viewing the underlying facts in the light most favorable to Martin, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), we cannot conclude that a triable issue of fact exists with regard to Pine Belt or Kidd’s willful participation in the alleged wrongful conduct. There is simply no evidence of a contractual or other agreement to involve Pine Belt or Kidd in any law enforcement decisions with regard to the undercover activities of the Municipal Defendants. The contract at issue is limited entirely to the leasing arrangement. Martin has presented no evidence that Pine Belt or Kidd had any knowledge of the day-to-day law enforcement operations of the Lakewood Police Department, much less any participation with their alleged profiling activities.